S.M. & M.M. v. Dilico Ojibway Child and Family Services, 2011 CFSRB 43

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

S.M. & M.M.

v.

Dilico Ojibway Child and Family Services

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOOTNESS

Date: November 29, 2011

Citation: 2011 CFSRB 43

Indexed as: S.M. & M.M. v. Dilico Ojibway Child and Family Services (CFSA s.61)

INTRODUCTION

1S.M. and M.M. (the “applicants”) brought an application, received September 1, 2010, under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”).

2Although the hearing of this application was originally scheduled for mid-November 2010, there was some delay in commencing the hearing. Initially, the parties, on consent, agreed to adjourn the hearing from November 2010 and set new hearing dates for the first week in January 2011. Due to new developments which led to some police involvement and further society investigation, the hearing was again adjourned on consent to mid-March 2011. These dates were subsequently cancelled for the completion of the police investigation, and the hearing was held over four days: July 27, 28, 29, and August 26, 2011.

3The applicants are seeking a review of the August […], 2010 decision by the society to permanently remove the three children, D., S. and L., from their foster home. Although the applicants were initially seeking the return of the three foster children to their home, during the hearing, the applicants advised that they are seeking the return of only one foster child, L. [“the child”], to their home.

4The Board has to decide, in the best interests of the child, whether to confirm or rescind the society’s decision to remove [the child] from the applicants’ foster home.

5The society takes the position that [the child] should not be placed in the applicants’ foster home. The society submits that two things, among other considerations, make it difficult for the applicants’ to meet [the child’s] needs, specifically, lack of supervision in the applicants’ home and [the foster mother’s] own personal challenges.

6The applicants are of the view that the children were always properly supervised in their home and that [the foster mother’s] problems are in the past, therefore, there was and is no reason why [the child] should not be returned to their foster home.

7In this case, the Board has to decide if the applicants can meet the physical and emotional needs of [the child]. After hearing and carefully considering the evidence, the Board has determined that it is in [the child’s] best interests that she not be returned to the applicants’ foster home and therefore, confirms the society’s decision.

BACKGROUND

8The applicants have three biological children, T., L2 and C.. As [the applicant foster father] became more involved in the workforce, the couple decided to open their home to foster children. On November […], 2001, D., born March […], 2001 was placed in their home after he was apprehended from his biological parents. D. was returned to his mother’s care on September […], 2004. However, when that placement later broke down, he was returned to the applicants’ care, on October […], 2004, along with his sister S., born October […], 2003. Their younger sister, [the child], born April […], 2005 joined them in the applicants’ home on April […], 2005 shortly after she was apprehended from their mother’s care, at birth.

9The three foster children were removed from the applicants’ home by Dilico Ojibway Child and Family Services (the “society”) in June […], 2008 pending a child protection investigation and were returned to their care on August […], 2008. The next disruption in care occurred in June […], 2010 when the children were removed from the applicants’ home pending an investigation into child protection concerns and were returned on July […], 2010.

10The children were removed again from the applicants’ home for further investigation on July […], 2010. This investigation verified two child protection concerns: (a) lack of supervision - that the children were improperly supervised in the applicants’ home and (b) “caregiver with a problem” - namely, that [the applicant foster mother], the primary caregiver, has personal problems which impact on her ability to care for the children. As a result, the society decided to remove the children in the applicants’ care on a permanent basis and conveyed this message verbally to the applicants on August […], 2010 and in writing on August […], 2010.

ANALYSIS

11In making its determination, the Board must answer the following question:

1. Can the applicants meet [the child’s] physical, mental and emotional needs?

12The relevant subsections of the Act are reproduced below.

s.61 ( 8.6) The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm the proposal to remove the child or direct the society not to carry out the proposed removal, and shall give written reasons for its decision.

s. 37(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

2. Any other relevant circumstance

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

13To fully understand the applicants’ family unit, it is important to know that [the applicant foster mother’s] role is to be the primary caregiver to all of the children in the home – both biological and foster. The [applicants] reside in a large 5-bedroom home with a pool in the backyard. [The applicant foster father] deposited money into an account from which [the applicant foster mother] covered household and personal expenses. [The applicant foster father’s] work history and availability to provide additional support to [the applicant foster mother] was impacted by his work schedule. In 2001, [the applicant foster father] had a job which required him to spend approximately 3 nights per week away from the home. [The applicant foster father] was unemployed for about one year before finding work in [Province] in August 2006. While working in [Province], he would be away from home for about 2½ months and at home for one month. In 2009, he got a job in [City], where initially he spent 90 days there before coming home for 10 days. He reports that his current schedule in [City] is that he spends 21 days there and returns home for seven to fourteen days.

14On November […], 2001 when D. was first placed in the applicants’ foster home, there also were two foster children, “C[2]” and “S[2]”, in that home. The evidence is that on October […], 2002, L2 and C., the applicants’ biological children, “tied up and toilet paper put in ... mouth” of the child “S[2]”, who was four years old at the time. D.P., alternative care worker, who provides support and supervision to foster parents, recalled that [the applicant foster mother], when questioned about the event, reported that the boys had tied “S[2]” up in her clothing in the basement. [The applicant foster mother] was cautioned at that time that she should supervise the children more closely.

15A few days later, on October […], 2002, there was another report of an incident in the applicants’ home. The incident involved C., then aged 10, the foster child “C[2]”, then age 9 and another 9 year old boy who was being babysat by [the applicant foster mother]. The boy reported to his parents that “C[2]” had restrained him while C. touched his penis with a lit piece of paper. The [City B] police and the society investigated this allegation. The society was concerned about the increased sexualized behaviours between the boys in the home, including a reported threat by C. to cut off L2’s penis. The society along with the applicants believed that C. was reacting to exposure to inappropriate sexualized behaviour while residing with his father in British Columbia. A decision was made to remove both “C[2]” and “S[2]” from the applicants’ home and to have C. attend counselling to deal with these concerns. However, D., less than two years old, was left in the home.

16In September 2004, D. returned to his parents’ care for a brief period before returning to the applicants’ care on October […], 2004, along with his sister S.. The children’s sibling, [the child], joined them in the applicants’ home on April […], 2005, shortly after being apprehended at birth. By this time [the applicant foster father] had started to work out of town during the week and would normally be home on weekends, while [the applicant foster mother] was primarily responsible for the care of the six children.

17By August 2005, [the applicant foster mother] was reporting some challenges parenting D.. Although four years old, his behaviour was reportedly more like a two-year old, requiring almost constant supervision and he appeared to be jealous of S.. A conduct disorder was tentatively diagnosed after a telephone consultation with psychiatrists at the [Hospital]. [The worker] suggested that [the applicant foster mother] closely supervise D..

18Another consult was required with [Hospital] after D. continued to be very aggressive with S.. The applicants were told that D. should not be left alone with S., however they felt that it was not only a supervision issue. The applicants requested and were given additional supports like respite and daycare for the children.

19The society was again concerned about the level of supervision in the applicants’ home, after [the applicant foster mother] reported in June 2006 that D. had gone into the backyard by himself, put on a life jacket and went into the pool, where she noticed him from inside. The society had had earlier discussions with the applicants about pool safety since there was a pool in the backyard and there was a concern that it was not adequately enclosed. The applicants were again cautioned as this incident increased the society’s apprehension about the children’s safety around the pool. [The worker] stressed to [the applicant foster mother] that the children needed much closer and constant supervision.

20One month later, [the applicant foster mother] reported to the society that D. went into the shed at the applicants’ home, climbed up a ladder, got an exacto knife and slashed the seat and tires of L2’s new bike. From the applicants’ evidence, it appears that they did not recognise the seriousness of this incident, especially that D. was able to access an exacto knife without their knowledge. The applicants were again reminded of the need to supervise the children.

21The society was also concerned that there was a delay between these incidents occurring and the applicants reporting them to the society, as foster parents are required to do.

22On March […], 2007 [the applicant foster mother] took D., along with two of her children, on a driving trip to visit [the applicant foster father] in [Province], with a scheduled return date of March […], 2007. On March […], 2007 [the applicant foster mother] called the society to advise that they were still in [Province] and would be returning on March […] or […], 2007. [The applicant foster mother] did not provide a contact number or advise the society that there had been another change in plans. This was of significant concern because the society had no knowledge about D.’s whereabouts and also both S. and [the child] were placed in separate respite homes and were expected to return to the applicants’ home. On March […], 2007, [the applicant foster mother] left a message with the society advising they were delayed, but did not leave any contact information.

23On April […], 2007, [the worker] contacted [the applicant foster father] in [Province] after obtaining his telephone number from his father in [City B]. [The applicant foster father] advised that [the applicant foster mother] and the children had left [Province] the day before and were driving straight through. T., who was seriously injured in [City B] a few days earlier, was being discharged to a shelter pending [the applicant foster mother’s] arrival. The next day, [the worker] spoke to [the applicant foster mother] about the need to keep the society advised about the foster children’s whereabouts at all times, the concern of D. missing school, as well as the danger of driving “straight through” from [Province]. In fact, [the applicant foster mother] did have a minor accident on the trip home.

24In May 2007, [the applicant foster mother] advised [the child’s worker], the children’s worker at the time, about an incident whereby D., then age six, had climbed out of his bedroom window using his bunk bed ladder. D. was running around on the roof of the house and S. was climbing up the ladder when [the applicant foster mother] intervened. [The applicant foster mother] was again reminded about the increased vigilance required to care for these children. The applicants in their testimony stated that this was the fire escape route which they had practiced with D. and seemed unable to appreciate how unsafe this safety plan was.

25[The applicant foster mother] first started to express concerns about her mental health to society workers in June 2007. She advised that she was depressed and was receiving counselling, which she was finding helpful. She also advised that she attended late night bingo and that T. her son, or [ ] a babysitter, would care for the children during those periods. [The applicant foster mother] was told that T. was not to supervise the children.

26S.V., who was D.’s counsellor from July 2007 to November 2008, initially became involved to assist D. with a reported ADHD diagnosis. [The applicant foster mother] was reporting that she needed assistance with D.’s out of control behaviour, yet the school felt it could manage his behaviour and were not seeing at school the concerns raised by [the applicant foster mother].

27During this period, [the applicant foster mother] started to disclose some of her personal issues to [the worker]. In June 2007 [the applicant foster mother] told [the worker] that she was trying to get help to deal with some personal issues which were interfering with her ability to care for the children. [The worker] recalled that [the applicant foster mother] spoke about spending about $1,000.00 per month gambling, her sleep difficulties/depression which was being treated with antidepressants for a period of time, and her anorexia/eating disorder for which she was referred to a clinic. [The worker] testified that she encouraged [the applicant foster mother] to be open with her and to let the society know how things were for her personally, as the society would be able provide additional support.

28On June […], 2008 the society received a referral from D.’s counsellor, S.V.. D. had disclosed an incident where [the child] fell into the pool when [the applicant foster mother] was not present. D. reported that he was blamed by [the applicant foster mother] for pushing his sister [the child] into the pool, which had about one foot of water in it, and that he did not do it. S.V.’s evidence was that D. reported being scared at the time, since [the applicant foster mother] was not around and he had to run upstairs to get her. D. at that time also disclosed that [the applicant foster mother] often blamed him for things he did not do.

29As his counsellor, S.V. was concerned about the safety of the children in the home, especially around the pool, and the fact that D. might be the “scapegoat” in the home, impacting on his psychological development. [The applicant foster mother] in her testimony reported that she had gone into the house briefly before D. called her and denied that she blamed D. for the incident. She did recall [the child] being scared after she fell into the pool.

30The three foster children were removed from the applicants’ home on June […], 2008, pending an investigation into the pool incident. [The worker] recalled in her testimony that she too was concerned that D. was being blamed by [the applicant foster mother] for [the child] falling into the pool and that [the applicant foster mother] was not accepting any responsibility for the incident.

31The investigation verified that there was inadequate supervision in the home and there was a concern that [the applicant foster mother] was not providing the society with information which impacted on the children’s well-being.

32An internal society meeting was held and initially both [the child’s worker] and [the worker] were of the opinion that the children should not be returned to the applicants’ home given the history of protection concerns. The applicants’ however, were still committed to providing long-term care for the three children. The society staff met with the applicants and after much thought and discussion returned the children to the applicants’ home on August […], 2008, on the condition that the applicants comply with terms of an agreement. This agreement required among other things, that the children were not to be supervised by any of the applicants’ biological children. The evidence is that the applicants agreed to abide by all the terms of this agreement. [The child’s worker], after listening to the applicants, believed that the applicants could be given a “fresh start” start with this agreement, while [the worker] testified that she believed that the applicants understood the seriousness of the incident and were prepared to change.

33[The worker]’s evidence is that it is unusual for the society to return foster children to a home where there are verified child protection concerns. G.R., Child Services Manager, in his evidence explained that with this family and these children, the society took several factors into consideration, including the length of time in the home, the applicants’ motivation and commitment to care for the three siblings on a long-term basis and the lack of available foster homes in [ ] Ontario, to place three children.

34The evidence is that things improved in the [applicants’] home after the parties entered into the agreement. [The applicant foster mother] became more involved in the children’s activities, she was attending doctors’ appointments regularly and was open about her spending and gambling issues.

35In February 2009, [the worker] recalled that during a home visit, she found that [the applicant foster mother] appeared different. [The applicant foster mother] had been prescribed anti-depressants, had lost a lot of weight and was exercising over five hours per day. During the annual review of the applicants’ foster home in April 2009, [the worker] recalled [the applicant foster mother] stating that prior to the 2008 pool incident, she was not always open with the society and that the children at times were a “burden”, but that things were better now as she has been forced to deal with her issues. At this time [the applicant foster father] was working in [Province].

36However, by January 2010 some of [the applicant foster mother’s] previous behaviours started to surface. [The applicant foster mother] was missing appointments with society workers, not returning their calls and the society was taking the foster children to their appointments. The applicant had also disclosed to the society that L2 and C. were left to care for the children. [The worker] recalls that she felt encouraged when [the applicant foster mother] told her that she was working on her trust relationship with the society and being more honest with the agency.

37In March 2010 the society received a Notice of Garnishment from Easy Cash requesting that the society garnish the wages of [the applicant foster mother] to a maximum of about fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00). In this notice it indicted that the society owed [the applicant foster mother] money “in the form of wages, salary...”. This led the society to believe that [the applicant foster mother] had advised someone that she was a society employee. [The applicant foster mother], as a foster parent, is not an employee of the society. She receives money from the society on a per diem basis for the foster children in her care.

38The society became concerned that [the applicant foster mother] was not using the foster care per diem to care for the children. When [the worker] asked [the applicant foster mother] about the notice in May 2010, [the applicant foster mother] explained that she had borrowed the money for her son, T. who did not repay it as promised. She also denied that she had any knowledge that it was past due. She further stressed that she did not want [the applicant foster father] to know about the loan because he would “be furious” that she had “bailed out” T. again. The society was later notified that [the applicant foster mother] had arranged a payment plan.

39In June 2010 the society received another Notice of Garnishment about another one of [the applicant foster mother’s] loans. When contacted about this on June […], 2010, [the applicant foster mother] advised the society that it was an error which will be corrected. On June […], 2010 the society made several unsuccessful attempts to contact [the applicant foster mother] by telephone. The children’s services worker was also trying unsuccessfully to arrange private interviews with the children through [the applicant foster mother]. On June […], 2010 the society briefly spoke with [the applicant foster mother] by telephone who advised that the society should garnishee her foster allowance. Later attempts to contact [the applicant foster mother] to discuss this situation further were also unsuccessful.

40The society held an internal meeting on June […], 2010 to discuss some ongoing concerns within the applicants’ foster home, including the lack of communication between [the applicant foster mother] and the society, the “garnishment” issues and [the applicant foster mother’s] fear of sharing this with her husband and the inability to meet privately with the children. At that meeting it was decided that the children would be placed in a respite home.

41Two society workers went directly to the applicants’ home to meet with [the applicant foster mother] to advise her of the society’s decision. Although [the applicant foster mother] was reluctant to do so, the society expectations were that [the applicant foster mother] had to inform her husband of the garnishment notices and pay off the associated debts. The society also determined that prior to the children returning from respite, a meeting between the applicants and the society had to occur, with [the applicant foster father] being present by telephone. [The applicant foster mother] advised that she understood the expectations and would meet them because she wanted the children to come home. She also said that she would keep the society informed of the developments.

42[The applicant foster mother] advised the society by telephone message on June […], 2010 that the debt had been paid off. Although attempts were made to reach [the applicant foster mother], the society did not have any contact with her until July […], 2010 when she left another telephone message inquiring about the children. Further attempts to reach [the applicant foster mother] by telephone were unsuccessful as there was no answer and there was no longer a machine on which to leave messages.

43The society eventually received a call from [the applicant foster father] on July […], 2010 asking the society to contact [the applicant foster mother]. The society attempted three times to reach [the applicant foster mother] again until [the applicant foster father] called expressing his concern that the society was not responding to his wife’s calls. [The applicant foster father] was surprised when told of the society’s many attempts to contact [the applicant foster mother] since the children were removed from the home. He was obviously hearing a different story from [the applicant foster mother].

44The society met with the applicants ([the applicant foster father] on telephone) on July […], 2010 to discuss the issues which led to the children being placed in a respite home. During that meeting, the applicants agreed to abide with certain conditions if the children were returned to their care. This included [the applicant foster mother] attending counselling to deal with the issue of avoiding problems; [the applicant foster mother] was to work with D.’s counsellor, spend more time with him and attend activities with him; the applicants were to follow all of the terms of the original agreement made in 2008; and [the applicant foster mother] was to have an answering machine on her phone. As the children were visiting family in their community, the plan was that the children would return to the applicants’ home when they returned to [City B].

45However, the society observed some “concerning behaviours” between D. and S. during the children’s visit in their community, [Town]. G.R., Children’s Services Manager, stated that this was the first time anyone from the society had seen the children’s bedtime routine. Two society workers, including L.P., who took the children to [Town], to their community for the visit, noticed that while in the hotel room, there were “boundary issues” between D. and S.. S. would completely undress in front of D. and he was observed putting his arms around her and rubbing her chest. The workers found that they had to supervise the children very closely. Also D. spoke about how his brothers, likely C. and L2, hit him.

46The children were placed in the applicants’ home when they returned to [City B] from this visit on or around July […], 2010. By July […], 2010 the applicants were already violating a term of the 2008 agreement, as [the applicant foster mother] had left S. at home with L2 and his girlfriend.

47On July […], 2010 the society received a report from the applicants’ neighbour about inappropriate sexual play by D., now 8. The neighbour alleged that while she and her daughter were visiting the applicants’ home, D. touched her daughter in a sexually inappropriate manner.

48The society removed the children from the applicants’ home pending further investigation of the recent events. Due to the serious nature of the allegations and concerns, a Serious Occurrence Report was filed with the Ministry of Child and Youth Services. Section C (Details of Serious Occurrence) of this Report reads:

July […]/10 D. disclosed to permanent care worker that he is was hit by foster parent’s son L2 and his friend. There is concern surrounding D. displaying inappropriate sexual behaviours at different times. Concern around foster mother ability to deal effectively concerns in the family and mental health. Foster parent’s inability to have appropriate authorized caregivers in place when she is absent.

49[The intake worker] conducted this investigation. Her evidence is that although at intake the child protection concerns were: (a) caregiver with a problem; (b) lack of supervision; (c) physical abuse; and (d) inappropriate sexual exposure, only (a) and (b) were verified. That is, that there was enough information to confirm that in the home there is a caregiver with a problem and there is a lack of appropriate supervision of the children. The fact that (c) and (d) were not verified does not mean that those child protection concerns are not present in the home, but that there was not enough information to confirm their existence.

50[The applicant foster mother] admitted to [the intake worker] that it was inappropriate for her children to babysit the foster children periodically. She did not think it was an issue because it was only for short periods of time. [The intake worker] recalled that while [the applicant foster mother] was upset by the neighbour’s report of inappropriate sexual play between D. and her daughter, she added that the girl was not wearing underwear and that D. may have been “tickling” the girl. With respect to L2, 15 years old, and his friends hitting D., [the applicant foster mother] admitted to V.W. that the boys do rough play, but that this occurs because D. is impulsive. [The applicant foster father] in his testimony vehemently denied that the foster children were ever left alone in the care of their biological children. [The applicant foster mother], on the other hand, admitted that she had left the foster children in her sons’ care, but denied that it was for any extended periods of time - “ once or twice, just five minutes while I ran to the grocery store”.

51During the interview, [the intake worker] found that [the applicant foster mother] could not provide a clear picture of her mental health. [The applicant foster mother] admitted that she sometimes took sleeping medication, had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and an eating disorder, but did not see any of this as a “big deal”. [The intake worker] asked [the applicant foster mother] to provide her consent to discuss her health with her physician and her counsellor. Initially [the applicant foster mother] was agreeable to the society speaking with her counsellor only. However after speaking with her husband, she withdrew her consent. V.W. then had no independent information to determine [the applicant foster mother’s] current mental health status or her ability to care for the children.

52[The applicant foster mother] in her testimony disclosed that she was [harmed] as a child, but that it was all in the past. She reported that the medication that she is prescribed is to help her deal with the [past]. Her view is that she does not have any mental health problems, only the society thinks that she does and that the society could not make that diagnosis since they are not doctors. She further testified that none of the society’s concerns about her mental health had any impact on her ability to parent the children.

53[The applicant foster mother] did not disclose any sexualized behaviour between D. and S. to [the intake worker] and in her testimony, denied having had any prior knowledge of this inappropriate behaviour between them. However, L2 in his testimony stated that at their camp in 2008, he had seen S. touching D. inappropriately and D. encouraging her. He testified that he told his mother about it and he knew that his mother responded by separating D. and S..

54[The intake worker] recalls that D. showed her “bruises” he got from playing with L2’s friend, not L2. However, he did not disclose any inappropriate sexual behaviour. Neither S. nor [the child] disclosed any inappropriate behaviour, who both see living with the applicants as “home”.

55[The intake worker] verified that the children in the home were at risk because [the applicant foster mother] was a “caregiver with a problem” and that [the applicant foster mother] did not properly supervise the children as required by the 2008 agreement and the July […], 2010 meeting. As such, the society determined that the children could not be returned to the care of the applicants without further information being provided by [the applicant foster mother].

56On August […], 2010, [the intake worker] met with [the applicant foster mother] to tell her the outcome of the investigation. [The intake worker] recalls that the applicant appeared relieved by the news. [The intake worker] at that meeting also recommended that [the applicant foster mother] provide the requested medical update so that the society can get an idea about her mental health status. This was again conveyed to the applicants by letter dated August […], 2010.

57[The applicant foster mother] continued to be ambivalent about signing the consents and having the children returned to her care. On August […], 2010 the society staff who were involved with this family, met and unanimously decided that the children should be removed from their foster placement with the applicants. A letter dated August […], 2010 confirming this decision was sent to the applicants and it is this decision which the Board is now reviewing.

“The Child”

58[The child] was placed in the care of the applicants shortly after she was apprehended from her biological mother at birth. It was the applicants’ evidence that [the child] never knew that she was a foster child. Unlike the other children, [the applicant foster mother] felt that [the child] was her biological child since she came to them directly after her birth. She viewed [the child] as the daughter she never had and led [the child] to believe she was her biological mother. [The applicant foster father] testified that it would tear them apart if [the child] was not returned to their care. He opined that D. and S. have issues that are different from [the child] and they need special help.

59After the children were removed from the applicants’ home, they were placed in a treatment foster home. A joint police and society investigation was commenced in January 2011 because the children disclosed to the foster parents potential child protection concerns which could have led to criminal charges against the applicants and their children. S. was removed from that foster home, while D. and [the child] remained together. The society also had another “telepsych” consultation with [Hosptial] to determine what future plans should be made for [the child] and her two siblings. Specifically, the society wanted to know if the children should be placed in one treatment home, or if each child needed to be placed in separate homes.

60G.R., Children’s Services Manager, testified that the psychiatrist from [the Hosptial] recommended that the children not be placed together, since it would be impossible for any foster home to deal with all of their treatment needs. The psychiatrist felt that it was more important for the children to be placed in separate foster homes where the foster parents, with guidance and treatment foster care skills, can teach appropriate boundaries and socialization to the children. This could take two to three years.

61In June 2011, [the child] was placed in the same foster home as S.. The evidence is that the girls are happy to be together, are in recreational programs, have access to D. once per week and have separate bedrooms, as they require lots of supervision. Further, the foster parents are in regular contact with the society and provide the society with up to date information about the girls’ progress.

62Counselling was also recommended by [the Hospital]. The evidence of S.V. is that she is currently counselling [the child] and working on her social skills. She finds [the child] to be open and engaging.

CONCLUSION

63Can the applicants meet [the child’s] physical, mental and emotional needs? The above chronology speaks for itself.

64[The child] needs to be placed in a foster home where the foster parents communicate openly with the society; foster parents who, with guidance from the society and having specialized treatment foster care skills, can teach appropriate boundaries and socialization to her.

65There are numerous instances where the applicants failed to adequately supervise the children. An alarm should have been raised in 2002 when there were two incidents occurring within days of each other involving the applicants’ children and other foster children in the home. It is surprising that the society did not remove D. from the applicants’ home and also close the applicants’ home as a potential placement for foster children. Further, based on today’s standards, a protection file would be opened on the applicants’ family as their biological children would also be considered at risk of harm.

66D.’s behaviour was so concerning that two “telepsych” consultations with [the Hospital] recommended that the applicants closely supervise him. The importance of following this recommendation was clearly not recognised by [the applicant foster mother], as incidents caused by lack of supervision continued to occur. The society also gave specific instructions to the applicants prohibiting their biological children from being in a caregiving role. Compliance with this requirement was further formalized by way of an agreement in August 2008, and again emphasized in the July […], 2010 meeting with the applicants. In both instances the children were initially removed, but were subsequently returned to the applicants’ foster home on these strict conditions. In July 2010, no more than five days after the children had returned to their care, [the applicant foster mother] failed to comply with this, leaving S. at home with L2.

67The many instances of children being placed at risk of harm while in the applicants’ care because of inadequate supervision, indicate that the applicants were unable to meet their physical safety needs. Although the evidence shows that the applicants can meet some of the children’s physical needs, the Board finds that the applicants would not be able to meet [the child’s] physical need to be safe.

68Further, [the applicant foster mother] was not always forthright with the society and often failed to keep the society informed when significant events, which impacted on the children, occurred. It is important that foster parents be open and honest with the society, since the society has a responsibility to ensure that the children who are in care are safe. The evidence shows that the applicants, [the applicant foster mother] in particular, has not been able to foster this type of relationship with the society. The applicants have not been able to meet this crucial foster parent requirement.

69Further, [the applicant foster mother], although well-intentioned, does not have the supports in place to adequately care for foster children. [The applicant foster father’s] extended absences from the home due to work, placed the heavy burden of raising six children squarely on [the applicant foster mother’s] shoulders. Although the evidence shows that the society devoted a lot of resources to support [the applicant foster mother], what was also needed was another adult in the home to “share the load” and provide some relief for her. Even if only [the child] is placed with the applicants, the fact that [the applicant foster mother] faces unacknowledged personal challenges and [the applicant foster father’s] extended absences from the home, they would not be able to meet [the child’s] needs.

70[The worker’s] evidence is that she spent a significant amount of time providing telephone and in person support to the applicants, particularly [the applicant foster mother], compared to other foster families. To her credit, [the applicant foster mother] sought external support for the children when she was able to identify that there was an issue.

71As children develop, they need to have caregivers who are emotionally available to them. However, the evidence shows that due to [the applicant foster mother’s] own personal challenges, as she deals with her own history, even with external support, she was not available to meet the mental and emotional needs of the children in her care. As such, the Board finds that the applicants are unable to meet [the child’s] mental and emotional needs.

DECISION

72For the reasons above, the Board confirms the decision of the society to remove the child [ ] from the care of [the applicants].

ORDER

73The hearing was conducted in private and was not open to the public. Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone, including the media or internet.

Denyse Diaz

Presiding Member

Frances Sanderson

Board Member

Ruth Ann Schedlich

Board Member