CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
T.H. v. Children’s Aid Society of Northumberland
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: T.H. v. Children’s Aid Society of Northumberland (the “Society”)
(CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1T.H. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Northumberland (the “Society”) on July 12, 2011.
2In his application to the Board, the Applicant alleges that the Society failed to hear his concerns or provide him with reasons for a decision that affects his interests. His complaint relates to his request for a letter in support of his application to the Family Court for unsupervised access to his children, S.H. (age 14) and J.H (age 5).
3The Society takes the position that they have explained to the Applicant why they will not write the requested letter. The Society believes that they have heard the Applicant’s request and his opinion that there should be unsupervised access, however, they do not agree that unsupervised access is appropriate for the children at this time for reasons that they have explained to him in writing.
4The Board held a hearing on November 7, 2011. At the commencement of his cross-examination, the Applicant requested an adjournment so that he could retain counsel. The hearing continued on November 22, 2011.
5The Board has determined that the Society met its obligations to the Applicant under sections 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act. The reasons for the Board’s decision follow.
BACKGROUND
6The Applicant is the father of two children who moved to Canada with his family from [ ] in September of 2009. He purchased a farm, sight unseen, in Ontario. The property was in disrepair and the family faced unanticipated financial difficulties. The Applicant’s problems began when a neighbour allegedly harvested the crop that was grown on the Applicant’s land. The Applicant believes that the police did not respond appropriately in December 2009; consequently, he took six bales of hay from the neighbour to feed his livestock. Fearing retribution from the neighbour, his wife called the police. The Applicant attempted suicide in the police cruiser and was immediately hospitalized on December […], 2009.
7In the fall of 2010, the Applicant and his wife experienced marital problems, in addition to their financial difficulties. The Applicant’s wife obtained employment and soon lost her job, which she blamed on the Applicant. His wife claimed threatening behaviour on his part and she obtained a restraining order from the Family Court. The Applicant was admitted to hospital on October […], 2010, under a Form 1, because of concerns that he may attempt suicide again. On November […], 2010, the hospital issued a psychological report concluding that the Applicant was not suffering from psychosis but rather from an adjustment disorder.
8Since his immigration to Canada, the Applicant has been involved with the criminal justice system. On April […], 2011, the Applicant was found guilty of disobeying a Court order, pursuant to section 127 of the Criminal Code. He is currently on probation and is restrained from any contact with his wife and children, unless it is in accordance with a Family Court order. A second criminal charge of disobeying a Court order was dismissed on July […], 2011.
9The Applicant’s Family Court case for access is ongoing. The Applicant is not permitted to see the children on an unsupervised basis. The Applicant is permitted to see the children on a supervised basis (in accordance with the court orders dated November […], 2010 and February […], 2011). However, the Applicant has not seen his children since his admission to hospital on October […], 2010 for the following reasons:
(1) Initially it was expected that supervised access would take place at [Agency] Child and Family Services. However, according to the testimony of R.A., a supervisor at the Society, the Applicant did not follow up with the intake process.
(2) The Society opened a file with this family, which remained open until July 2011. [The Agency] has a policy that it will not supervise access where the Society is involved with the family.
(3) On March […], 2011, the Society advised the Applicant that they would not supervise any access until the criminal charges against him relating to the second charge were resolved.
(4) In spring 2011, the Society arranged to supervise a visit, however the Applicant did not attend. The Applicant testified that he was informed of the visit after the access date had passed;
(5) From July […], 2011 the Society no longer has an open file, so it is not their role to supervise the access. The Applicant did not provide any testimony as to why there has been no supervised access, or if he has taken steps to arrange for supervised access.
10The Applicant continues to seek unsupervised access to the children from the Family Court. The Applicant has asked the Society to issue a letter to support his request for unsupervised access. The Society previously offered its opinion about the Applicant’s access by way of a letter to the Family Court on January […], 2011. That letter states that the Applicant should have no unsupervised access to the children.
11The Applicant has made this complaint to the Board because he believes that:
(a) the Society failed to hear him when they made the decision not to write the letter to support his request for unsupervised access.
(b) the Society failed to provide an explanation as to why they will not write a letter to the Court supporting his request for unsupervised access.
ANALYSIS
12The Board must determine whether the Society heard the Applicant and gave him explanations regarding the letter to the Court.
13The Board has concluded that the Society met its obligations to the Applicant.
14The Board considered the following legislative provisions in the Act in reaching its decision on the merits of the Application:
68.1(4). The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
(4) Allegations that the society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a);
(5) Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
2(2) Service providers shall ensure,
(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.
15The Applicant testified that he specifically asked for a letter of support for unsupervised access on July […], 2011, which is also the date of his complaint. The Supervisor testified that she believes that the Applicant has made more than one request for a letter of support after February of 2010. Based on the corroborating evidence of both parties, the Board takes the position that the Applicant made requests prior to July […], 2011. The Board finds that the Society had the opportunity to hear the Applicant and give him reasons. The Board has only considered the evidence up to the date the application was filed with the Board.
16The Applicant provided court documents to show the sequence of events that led to his complaint. He testified that there were court orders for supervised access, but he has not seen his children since October of 2010. The Family Court orders of November […], 2010 and February […], 2011 granted supervised access for the Applicant with his children at a supervised access centre, [Agency] Child and Family Services [ ], once per week. [The Agency] would not provide the supervised access since the Society had an open file on the family. He submitted the letter from the Society dated March […], 2011.
17The Applicant submitted a psychiatric report from [ ] [Centre] dated November […], 2010 which indicated that he does not have a history of psychiatric issues or psychosis. He had an adjustment disorder and his current difficulties were a result of the events that began in 2009. The Applicant cannot understand why the Society will not give him a letter of support since he provided them with this report on his mental status. He also gave a list of references consisting of MPP’s, the Mayor and Presidents of Companies, but the Society did not contact any of them. He also claimed that the probation order was based on false information.
18The Society sent a letter to the Court on January […], 2011 asking for no unsupervised access. The Supervisor and T.C., [the Director of Services], met with the Applicant on February […], 2011 to address the Applicant’s concerns. At this meeting they wanted supervised access to assess his parenting capacity because they had concerns about his mental health and his ability to understand the impact his behaviour has on the children. The Applicant agreed to allow the Society to speak to the authors of the psychological assessment from the regional health centre.
19The letter, dated February […], 2011 to the Applicant from the Director of Services documented the visit and the explanations given to him. This letter clearly outlined the issues discussed, the Society’s position that the Applicant participate in supervised access, and the reasons why. The Society needed to assess the relationship between the Applicant and his children. The letter specifically stated that supervised access would give his children a sense of security when visiting with him and provide an opportunity for him to demonstrate his parenting relationship with them. The Society considered the Applicant’s psychiatric report and asked for permission to speak to the authors of the report. The Society heard the Applicant during this meeting, gave him reasons for wanting supervised access and summarized it in writing.
20The Society’s March […], 2011 letter to the Applicant’s legal counsel again gave reasons for the Society’s position which did not support access while the second criminal charge was pending. The Society took this position as the Society believed that the Applicant’s daughter would be required to testify as a witness at the trial. The Society also explained in this letter that it will not force his daughter to attend access visits if she does not wish to do so and that the son would not be required to attend access visits without his sister.
21Counsel for the Society submitted the April […], 2011 Probation Order from the Criminal Court relating to the first criminal charge. The Probation order states that the Applicant’s access issues were before the Court in that it prevented the Applicant from contact with the children except in accordance with a Family Court order.
22The Supervisor has not spoken to the Applicant since around May of 2011, since he made it clear that any contact would be through his lawyer. Furthermore, it was difficult for the Society to communicate with the Applicant since he refused to speak to the Child Protection Worker, and would only speak to the Executive Director or Supervisor, whose roles are mainly administrative. The Society did not check the list of references that the Applicant provided because these references would not be able to speak to his parenting capacity.
23The letter of July […], 2011 to the Applicant indicated that the Society no longer had child protection concerns with the family since the Applicant was bound by a Probation order and was not seeing the children. The Society no longer has an open file on the family.
24The Society has been consistent in its position that it did not support unsupervised access for the Applicant and his children. The Society heard the Applicant and explained the reasons for its decision in a meeting held on February […], 2011 with the Applicant and the Supervisor and Director of Services. The follow-up letter documented the reasons. The letter of March […], 2011, gave reasons for their position for access while his criminal charge was pending.
25The Board finds that the Society heard the Applicant when making its decisions, gave him reasons for why they would not support unsupervised access and therefore would not write a letter to support his request.
CONCLUSION
26The Board dismisses the complaint.
Andrea Himel Presiding Member
Donald Butler Panel Member
Mary Wong Panel Member
Dated in Toronto, Ontario on the 12th day of December, 2011.