A & B v. Society, 2011 CFSRB 5

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

A & B v. Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: March 2, 2011

Citation: 2011 CFSRB 5

Indexed as: A & B v. [ ] Society (CFSA s.144)

* initials have been changed

INTRODUCTION

1[The child] is four years of age. The Applicants A and B are his foster parents and they want to adopt him. He has lived with them since he was eighteen months old. [The child] has special needs. The Society refused the Applicants’ application to adopt [the child]. The Applicants then applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“Board”) for a review and for a decision rescinding the Society’s refusal of their adoption application for [the child].

2The application is made under section 144 of the Child and Family Services Act (“Act”). The Board has to decide what action is in [the child’s] best interests and either confirm or rescind the Society’s refusal of the adoption application. The main issue before the Board is whether the Applicants can meet [the child’s] needs, and in particular his special needs. There is no question that [the child] has an attachment to his foster family.

3The Society’s position is that the Applicants cannot meet [the child’s] needs because of several concerns including an incident in June 2010 involving parent-child conflict, financial considerations and the health of the Applicant foster father. The Applicants’ position is that they have and can continue to meet [the child’s] needs and that he should be given the chance to grow up in the place he considers his home.

4The Board has determined that, in all of the circumstances, it is not in [the child’s] best interest to be placed for adoption with the Applicants. The Board confirms the decision of the Society to refuse the adoption application. These are the reasons for that decision.

BACKGROUND

5[The child] was born on November […], 2006. He had a brain bleed and was hospitalized for a month. He went home with his birth parents. He was involved in an early intervention program for children with delays. He was apprehended at 18 months of age due to neglect. [The child] had prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol. A hair follicle test showed that as an infant, there was so much cocaine in the child’s system that he had to have ingested it.

6[The child] was placed in the foster home of the Applicants in June 2008. He was their first foster child. He continued to experience delays as evidenced by lack of speech, gross motor and fine motor issues. The [Hospital] has identified the child as being globally delayed. He has received speech therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Currently, he needs orthotics. At age four, he is not potty trained. He has had some dietary and health issues.

7[The child] is attached to the Applicant foster mother, his primary caregiver. He does not deal with transition well and has displayed some behaviours such as biting, hitting and tantrums. He has also been described as a “happy” child who is considered the “cool” kid at pre-school, despite his limited speech. Since the fall of 2010, [the child] has made some developmental gains. More recently, his “separation anxiety” has increased in relation to the Applicant foster mother, particularly when she drops him off at pre-school.

8The child has ongoing, informal access to his sister and to his extended birth family.

9The Applicants have three adult children and one fifteen year old daughter, [E.]. (“daughter”). One adult child, C. and her daughter, [D] live with the Applicants. [The child] is close to [D].

10The Applicant foster mother was a child in care and has experienced hardships and trauma. She wants to foster to give back to children in care. Several years ago, the Applicants discovered that [ ]. This impacted on the family. The Applicants received some counseling as a couple. The Applicant foster mother was also counseled about her past. The Applicant foster mother has a history of depression and now has difficulty sleeping.

11The Applicant foster father was diagnosed with [ ] cancer three years ago. He is about to undergo radiation treatment. He has been on long term disability since June 2010, but hopes to return to work at [Company A] in [ ] 2011. He also has [ ] and will undergo an operation in April 2011. The Applicant foster father suffers from [ ] which is controlled by medication. He has had symptoms of depression related to his health issues.

12In June of 2010, the Applicants were investigated by the police and the Society as a result of conflict between the Applicant foster father and the fifteen year old, [E.] and the adult son, [ ]. A physical altercation took place outside between the Applicant foster father and [the adult son], relating to [E.]. The Applicants have legal custody of [E.] (they are not her birth parents). They had been having problems with [E.] skipping school, wanting to go to parties and not following the rules. This had been going on for at least several weeks. In this instance, their daughter went out with her brother [the adult son] and then with friends to McDonalds. She had permission to go to the store but nowhere else because she was grounded. When she returned, she and the Applicant foster father got into a verbal confrontation and he pushed her into her room. She then went outside with [the adult son], who tried to take her to his place. That is when the altercation took place between the Applicant foster father and [the adult son]. It involved pushing and shoving and some holding, but no hitting. The Applicant foster father grabbed his daughter by the sweater to bring her back into the yard. She called the police.

13Following the investigation, the Applicants were required to take certain steps. The steps included: [E.] and the Applicant foster father were to attend counseling, the Applicants were to participate in the [Program], the family was to seek assistance with conflict resolution and there was to be a review of the foster home. No ongoing child protection file was opened as the Society trusted that the Applicants would follow through on recommendations. However, the review of the fostering relationship was conducted. On August […], 2010, a decision was made to close the foster home.

14On August […], 2010 the Applicants were told that the foster home would be closed. On August […], 2010, they met with the Society. The reason for closing the foster home was set out in a letter dated August […], 2010 (one version was dated August […], 2010) as the outcome of the child protection investigation which resulted in:

Verification of Risk to Child of Mental/Emotional Harm or Developmental Condition Resulting from Exposure to Adult Conflict; “Verification of Risk that Child is Likely To Be Harmed-Prime Caregiver—due to inappropriate physical discipline.

15The Applicants were advised in the same letter that [the child] would be removed on September […], 2010. There was no reference in the letter to the right to seek a review of the removal from the Board, as required by s. 61 of the Act. The Applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the proposed removal. The Application was settled and a plan put in place to keep the child [ ] with the Applicants in foster care, but transition him to an adoptive home.

16On December […], 2010 the Applicants made an email request about adopting [the child]. On December […], 2010 Counsel for the Society wrote to the Applicants, refusing their adoption request.

17The Applicants then commenced this application to the Board under s. 144 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

18The Board has the power to review an adoption application refusal under section 144 (3) of the Act. The right to a review applies if a Society decides to refuse an application to adopt a particular child by a foster parent [s. 144(1)]. The Board must then, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review [s. 124 (11)].

19The Board is satisfied that the Applicants applied to adopt [the child] and that there was a refusal. The Society did not submit otherwise. There was evidence that in February of 2009, the Applicant foster mother said that they would love to adopt the child [ ], but couldn’t for financial reasons. The Applicants did agree to a plan, following the s. 61 application to transition the child into another adoptive home. However, in December 2010 they expressed a clear interest in wanting to adopt the child and took steps in that regard. They made an expression of interest in adopting [the child] by way of the email to the child’s worker (and others) dated December […], 2010. This was a follow up to a meeting the week before in which the Applicants had asked the workers what they had to do to adopt the child. The Society made a clear refusal of the request to be considered for adoption on December […], 2010. There is no prescribed form for an adoption application under the Act. The Society’s evidence was that it can screen out those interested in adoption at any stage of the process. In this case, the Society screened out the Applicants without further engaging the adoption application process. The Board is satisfied that the Applicants applied to adopt the child, [ ] and were refused.

20In determining what action was in the child’s best interests, under section 144 of the Act, the Board took into account the over-arching considerations set out in section 1 of the Act, as follows:

1. (1) The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children.

Other purposes

(2) The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well being of children, are:

2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered.

3. To recognize that children’s services should be provided in a manner that,

i. respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,

iii. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests,

21The Board was required to and did consider the relevant factors set out in section 136 (2) of the Act, namely:

136 (2) 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. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

3. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

4. The child’s relationships by blood or through an adoption order.

5. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

6. Any other relevant circumstance.

22The main issue for the Board in this case is the Applicants’ ongoing ability to meet [the child’s] physical, mental and emotional needs, particularly in light of his developmental delays. The Board finds that given the health and family issues facing the Applicants, they face too many stressors to parent [the child] now and into the future. Further, the Board is concerned about the Applicants’ limited understanding of [the child’s] ongoing needs which negatively impacts on meeting his needs. This also impedes their ability to act as strong advocates for [the child] in the medical, educational and social service systems.

23The Society raised concerns about the Applicants’ parenting in terms of allegations regarding inappropriate discipline, diapering and follow through on early intervention. Their main reasons for refusing the adoption application were set out in their letter of December […], 2010, discussed below.

24R.P., the Society’s Adoption Supervisor testified that when he received the request from the Applicants to adopt the child, he looked on the Society database. In deciding whether to proceed with the Application or screen it out, he was looking at whether there was a criminal record (there was not), verified protection concerns (there were) and a good history of family functioning. In reviewing the materials available, he also looked at finances and health and ability to follow through. He had concerns about all three.

25The Adoption Supervisor decided to screen out the Applicants. He did not make inquiries of the workers directly involved or of third parties. The Board heard evidence about some of the concerns noted in the database that would put in question the Adoption Supervisor’s automatic reliance on recorded information. However, while the Board has concerns about the Society’s process, the role of the Board is not to determine whether the process was fair, but what action is in the child’s best interests in terms of adoption placement (Family Youth & Child Services of Muskoka v. D.M. and C.M., 2010 ONSC 6018).

26The refusal letter from Society Counsel dated December […], 2010 referenced previous correspondence from another Society counsel on September […], 2010. The September letter stated that even if they applied, the Applicants would be refused permission to adopt the child because of their self- identified (past and recent) financial limitations, as well as the verified concerns about the family and the lack of suitability as foster parents. The December […], 2010 letter reiterated the verified concerns and the financial difficulties. It added further that:

Since that letter was written [September […], 2010], [Applicant foster father] has been diagnosed with cancer, which would be yet another negative factor mitigating against the approval of the [Applicants’] home as an adoption placement for [the child].

27Of note, this is not accurate, as the Applicant foster father was diagnosed in May 2008, prior to September, 2010. The Adoption Supervisor who screened the Applicants out was aware of the diagnosis, as were the workers involved.

28When helping to select the child’s adoptive home, the Adoption Supervisor was looking for parents with an awareness of working with professionals, very good advocacy skills to fight for the resources the child would need, parents who could parent over the “long haul” beyond average maturity and parents with the ability to work with professionals by giving good information and following through. These considerations related to the child[‘s] [ ] special needs. His focus was on a finding a family that could cope with the child’s special needs.

29The Board will deal first with what it considers the most significant challenges to the Applicants that will impact on the child’s best interests. These are the health of the Applicants and the Applicants’ level of understanding of the child’s special needs which include his health and developmental needs. The Board will do so in the context of looking at whether the Applicants’ can meet the child’s needs.

30The Board will then address those of the Society’s concerns that are not subsumed in the analysis of parental health and understanding of the child’s needs.

31The Board will then weigh the concerns relating to meeting the child’s special needs against the importance of continuity of care and address the issue of access to the biological family.

The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs/The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development (Special Needs)

The child’s needs

32The child’s current and future needs are at stake. He must be placed for adoption in a home that will be stable and meet his needs.

33The child has global developmental delays. He requires ongoing speech and language therapy. He says very few words and can be frustrated by his inability to communicate. He enjoys school but is getting increasingly frustrated at pre-school and has said that he does not want to go. At school he has bitten and pinched other children, but otherwise, has made some progress since the fall of 2010.

34The child is estimated to be functioning at an eighteen month to two year old level. According to the Applicant foster mother, he does not understand the concept of punishment. According to his worker, the Children’s Services worker, K.Y., he will not understand the concept of adoption. The child’s Early Interventionist, S.B. describes his needs as relating to:

• Hearing loss
• Speech and language issues
• Physical delays

35The child is having an MRI as follow up to his brain bleed. The [Hospital], which followed him initially, is no longer actively involved. The child has difficulty walking. His feet are turned in. It is uncertain how long the child will need his orthotics. He will need them at least until age 6.

36In terms of the work of the Early Interventionist, the child requires consistent intervention because for some skills, he cannot move forward until the skill has been achieved. Gaps in service impact on his skill development. In a November […], 2010 Team Review Meeting Report (“Progress Report”) from the Early Interventionist, [the child’s] learning style is described as follows:

[The child] is always proud of new accomplishments. [The child] is delightful to work with and he is eager to learn new things. [The child] learns by repetition and observing others, he is great at imitation. When expectations are put on [the child] he can initially resist, use “First and then” strategies to encourage him to try new things and complete activities. It is highly important to encourage [the child] to follow through and focus with engaging activities and interactions.

37The child is not “potty trained“. According to the November […], 2010 Progress Report, he is not showing signs of physical toilet readiness as he is not identifying the difference between wet and dry. The Applicant foster mother testified that he has a history of excessive bowel movements and urinary problems. Recently, a doctor ruled out celiac. The child has also been taken off dairy, which has led to improvements. The child has a history of ear infections.

38It was the Society’s unchallenged evidence that the child will require parental care into adulthood for his global delays. The child’s worker identified that at about age six or seven, they would have more of a picture of the child’s needs; but not the full picture. The child was exposed to a significant amount of cocaine and to alcohol. There is a chance that he could have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

39The child has appointments on a regular basis.

Applicant foster father’s health

40The Applicant foster father is not in good health. He has [ ] cancer which he told the Board was contained [ ] and “treatable”. He was diagnosed with cancer in May of 2008. The Applicants did not call a doctor as a witness. The Applicant foster father is 57 years of age. [ ]. He requires surgery [ ] in April 2011. He is undergoing a hormone treatment that is considered chemotherapy. He is about to start radiation. A letter from his doctor dated October […], 2010 indicates that he has suffered ongoing [ ] problems and that he has discussed symptoms of depression as a result of his health concerns. The Applicant foster father testified that this meant that he had symptoms of depression “one day in one month—two days the next” and it was not ongoing. His medical condition has affected him “physically and emotionally”. The treatment [weakens muscle tone]. It affects him mentally because he cannot do what he did before. For example, it is frustrating for him because before, he could carry two 50lb bags at work, whereas now, he could only carry one. The Applicant foster father also has [ ]. It is controlled through medication (five pills a day) and requires regular monitoring, every three months.

41When asked what he would do if his health did not improve or took a turn for the worse, his response was that he has not considered what he would do because he did not believe it would not improve or take a turn for the worse.

42The [conditions], taken together, may be health concerns that the Applicant could reasonably conclude are manageable and would not affect his ability to parent. However, the Applicant is undergoing cancer treatment, which is intrusive. He is not at work because he is too ill to work at this time. He cannot do things he could in the past. The Applicant foster mother does not drive and she relies on the Applicant foster father or her adult daughter, C. to drive the child to school and appointments. Starting in December 2009, she asked for help from the Society for drives because of her husband’s illness. This is an appropriate request for help. However, once adopted, the child will not be in the care of the Society and will not have such supports. Neither Applicant presented the Board with a contingency plan should the Applicant foster father’s health deteriorate or remain as it is. They expect him to return to work by April or May 2011.

43The Applicant foster father testified that he felt that his health has not impacted his ability to care for [the child]. [He] testified that his role is to look after him when the Applicant foster mother cannot. He puts him to bed and usually makes his breakfast. His ability to drive [the child] has in fact been impacted by his health.

44The Applicant foster father has cancer which, based on the evidence before the Board, is treatable, but not in remission. He is currently experiencing chemotherapy and is about to go into radiation treatment. He is currently suffering from [ ], such that he was admitted to the hospital, albeit briefly. He requires surgery to [ ], which will not occur until April. The doctor’s letter did not give a prognosis for the Applicant foster father, nor did it give a time for return to work. The letter was out-dated. The Board understands that the Applicants want the Applicant foster father to be well and that they are very supportive of each other. However, the Applicant foster father’s role in caring for [the child] is currently limited to putting the child to bed and getting his breakfast and caring for him when the Applicant foster mother is not available.

45There is no evidence of the Applicant foster father playing with the child, [ ] or taking on any greater role. He is a very ill man. The child requires stability and parental care now and into the future. The Board is concerned that no contingency plan has been put in place should the Applicant foster father’s health stay the same or decline. Evidence from a doctor regarding a positive prognosis might have assisted the Board in determining that treatable cancer and cancer treatments were not a barrier to meeting the child’s special needs. The Board did not have this evidence. The Applicant foster father is essentially unavailable to parent the child at this time and his availability in the future is uncertain.

Health of the Applicant foster mother

46The Applicant foster father testified that his wife has monthly doctor’s appointments. The Applicant foster mother testified that she suffers from depression which she says is under control. However, she is on medication to help her sleep. She has been impacted by the June 2010 investigation, by her past and by the [ ]. In the homestudy done when considering the Applicants for foster care, her rating is “5” for four categories, including Childhood Family Adaptability and “4” for six categories including Psychiatric History and Adult History of Victimization/Trauma. A rating of “4” represents a serious concern and “5” an “extremely serious concern”. According to the Adoption Supervisor, an individual can mitigate against previous experiences and this is reflected in the homestudy. These scores are static and do not reflect mitigation. The homestudy does address strengths in the Applicant foster mother in terms of dealing with her past; however, these past experiences and depression can impact on parenting. According to the Adoption Supervisor, good history of family functioning is an important consideration for an adoptive parent. The Applicant foster mother, through no fault of her own has a troubled history in her birth family and in her immediate family with [ ]. The Applicant foster mother’s health alone is not determinative. Her vulnerability to depression, combined with the extreme pressure faced by her family in terms of her husband’s health is more significant to this Board.

Finances

47Health considerations will impact on financial considerations. The Board is concerned that the Applicant foster father’s Long Term Disability (“LTD”) is limited to two years. He has been on LTD since June, 2010. While he is expected to return to work in April or May 2011, there are no guarantees. The foster home is being closed by the Society which will mean the Applicant foster mother will need to work. She is confident that she can do so, as a virtual assistant. This is a job she can do from home, on the computer. The situation is strained financially, however, the Board accepts the evidence of the Applicants that should all go according to their plan, they will have sufficient resources, including community/ government resources and support from their adult children if needed, to meet the child’s needs including into adulthood. Should the Applicant foster father not be able to return to work, the Board is concerned with finances because no contingency plan was put to the Board. The Board does not, however, base its decision on financial considerations, but on issues relating to personal care of the child.

Understanding of the Child’s Needs

48The Applicants’ health issues and in particular those of the Applicant foster father are significant to the Board. These concerns, combined with the limited understanding of the child’s special needs and related lack of follow through are the main reasons that the Board has determined that it is not in the child’s best interests to be adopted by the Applicants.

49The Applicant foster father could not describe the child’s needs. He left the description of needs to the Applicant foster mother. When asked if [the child] might have behavioural problems in future, the Applicant foster mother testified that “[the child] is not a disabled child in any way”. She said he was not aggressive but “happy”. She could not foresee him having behavioural difficulties as he got older. The evidence is that the child has special needs, including global developmental delay. He has impaired hearing and has turned in feet, requiring intervention at this time. He sometimes gets frustrated, bites, pinches, hits and has had tantrums. These are associated with his inability to properly communicate through speech. He is a “disabled” child who may need parenting into and throughout his adulthood.

50The Applicant foster parents had difficulty parenting foster children when they acted out in the home. During the course of their contract with the Society, the agency unilaterly decreased the number of foster beds in their home from 4 beds to 2 beds and 1 relief bed. When faced with behavioural problems from the “Z” children (foster children in the home) the Applicant foster mother did not know what to do. The Applicant foster mother asked for help but did not get the help from the Society when she needed it. The Society offered to send a resource worker, but there was a delay in this service. The Applicant foster mother also sought respite from another foster mother, however, she remained overwhelmed by and afraid of one child in particular.

51While it is concerning that the Society may not have provided supports quickly enough, it raises questions about the Applicants’ ability to parent [the child] as he grows older. As he matures, [the child’s] behavior may be increasingly difficult to manage, a possibility that the Applicant foster mother refuses to acknowledge. It is unclear whether the Applicants will be able to manage the child’s behavior in an appropriate manner. It is also unclear whether the Applicants will ask for help from community resources and whether, if they make a request, that they will follow through to ensure that appropriate support and assistance is provided.

52A further example that highlights this concern relates to the Applicants’ daughter. When [E.] was acting up over the course of the period leading up to the June [..], 2010 incident, the Applicants did not ask for help from the Society or let them know that they were having difficulties. There is no evidence that they sought parenting help from a community agency, or that they sought help from school officials to deal with issues relating to [E.] such as skipping school.

53When faced with the conflict between her husband and her teenaged daughter, [E.] the Applicant foster mother’s own admitted parenting style is permissive. [E.] was spoiled by her and this contributed to the acting out in the summer of 2010. In furtherance of her permissive style, the Applicant foster mother has not ensured that [E.] continued to attend counseling, as required by the Society, because her daughter is 16 and doesn’t want to go. She gave no evidence of using any strategies to engage her daughter in attending counseling. The Board had no evidence from the counselor to indicate that the daughter no longer needed counseling.

54Further, when faced with possible mental health issues for [E.], the Applicant foster mother was not concerned. [E.’s] birth mother is schizophrenic. The Applicant foster mother testified that [E.’s] birth parents had issues with drugs and alcohol. During the June […], 2010 investigation, [E.] told the Society about suicidal thoughts. The Applicant foster mother testified that she was not concerned. She took her daughter to the doctor because she was required to do so by the Society. Although the doctor was apparently not concerned about the suicidal comments and thoughts, the Board is concerned that it took intervention from the Society to unearth the issues and ensure that the child was indeed safe.

55In addition, the Applicant foster mother deflects blame for the conflict that involved the police onto [E.], who is fifteen years old. She had no insight into how to deal with parent-teen conflict except through grounding-type consequences. Based on her evidence, the child, [ ] does not understand punishment or consequences, yet she would deal with him the same way.

56The Applicant foster father appears to be the disciplinarian in the home. He has admitted to pulling his daughter, [E.] out of bed by her hair when she wouldn’t get out of his bed and pushing her out of the room. He was on medication for his cancer at the time. He has admitted to pushing her out of another child’s room. He has admitted to engaging in verbal conflict with, [E.] on June […], 2010, pushing her into her room and to grabbing her by the sweater to try and get her to return to the yard. He has admitted to a physical altercation with his adult son who was trying to take his daughter with him as a result of the conflict that evening. He has attended eight or nine counseling sessions. He testified that they had helped and that the counseller said that he yelled a lot and had to use different techniques. However, when asked what he would do differently on that night, he could not say. There was no evidence as to his progress from the counselor.

57The Applicant foster mother indicated that she will be pursuing fostering from another agency. At this point, [the child] is the only young child directly under her care. Given the issues relating to [E.] and their adult son, and the uncertainty that the family has faced since June, 2010, it is concerning that the Applicants intend to pursue fostering a young child. The integration of a young child into the Applicants’ home will, by necessity, require further transition and take some time and attention away from [the child].

58The Board was also concerned because the Applicant foster mother felt that school resources would be enough for the child when the Early Interventionist is no longer available. School resources stop over the summer. The child is used to therapy in six week stints, so this gap may not be critical. However, the child requires ongoing speech and language therapy and possibly physiotherapy and the resources to the school Board are consultative in nature only. That means that consultants help teachers with therapies. They do not offer direct service or come into the home.

59This evidence points to limited insight about the child’s needs and about parenting adolescents. The child is a special needs child who will also go through adolescence. At its simplest, the Applicant foster father could not describe the child’s needs. Further, he has resorted to aggressive parenting on occasion, including when on medication for his cancer. Despite counseling, he could not articulate what he would have done differently now, looking back on the night of the conflict that led to the closing of the foster home. He did not attend the [Program] which might have helped him gain insights. In terms of disciplinary approaches, the fifteen year old daughter has a voice. She called the police. The [C]hild [ ], as a special needs child with limited speech, does not have a voice.

Concerns about Follow Through

60The Board is concerned that with respect to certain medical, counseling and training issues, the Applicants have shown a lack of follow through which will impact on their ability to meet the child’s needs.

61The child has dietary issues that may have contributed to bowel problems and concerns about diapers. The Society raised a concern about the child’s diapers being full on arrival at day care. This concern was not verified and according to the Society’s own witnesses, it was not clear that the Applicants were in any way responsible. The Board places no weight on this concern.

62The Board heard from the Applicant foster mother that the child had bowel issues and urinary problems that might explain the diaper issue. The Applicant foster mother eventually, with the help of physicians, ruled out celiac and stopped feeding the child dairy. The child is improving. The Board then heard from the Applicant foster mother on cross examination, that the child did not have urinary problems and then further, that while he may have had problems, she was focusing on his bowels, so did not raise it with the doctor. A parent needs to be able to present the full range of information to meet a child’s multiple needs. The Applicant foster mother suspected that the child had a urinary problem, yet she did not raise it because she had a singular focus. She was inconsistent in this regard, did not follow up and medical concerns were not pursued.

63Following the investigation into the June […], 2010 incident, the Society required the Applicants to attend a [Program]. The Applicants gave conflicting reasons for not having attended this parenting course. The Applicant foster father said it was because of his and the child’s multiple appointments. The Applicant foster mother said it was because the foster home was being closed, and she was prevented from taking the program through the Society for that reason.

64The Board heard evidence that the program is offered in the community and not just by the Society. The Applicant foster mother first testified that they could not take the program in the community due to the multitude of appointments for her husband and for [the child]. She later testified that she could not attend a community program because she is only permitted to leave [the child] with a caregiver who has a police check, and that she needed to consider her husband’s schedule. However, since June, 2010 the Applicant foster father has not been working and [the child] has been enrolled full-time at school/pre-school since September 2010 (except alternate Fridays).

65Between them, the Applicants have attended minimal training through the Society. The Applicant foster mother testified that there were many training programs that she would have liked to attend at the CAS since being told that the foster home was being closed, but she was prohibited from doing so because of that status. However, the Applicant foster parents failed to attend the minimum number of training programs required by the Society on an annual basis since commencing their role as foster parents in 2008, including the failure to attend various sessions for which they had enrolled. Part of the reason for the reduction in the number of beds in 2008, was to allow the Applicants to attend more training, specifically in relation to children with special and behavioural needs. The Applicant foster father’s illness has impacted their ability to follow through on training which might have helped with parenting skills. Even given his illness, some online training was available and was not utilized by either Applicant. The Applicant foster mother has worked as a computer-based assistant and has computer knowledge.

66The child’s Early Interventionist testified that she had concerns that the Applicants were cancelling appointments and were not following through with homework. Gaps in services could impact on the child’s ability to progress. It became evident during her testimony that the Early Interventionist was responsible, in part for gaps in the service. While the Applicants did cancel a couple of appointments, the Early Interventionist did not always follow up to schedule appointments. The Early Interventionist had no basis for suggesting that homework wasn’t done, because she wasn’t in the home. The Board places no weight on her evidence about missed visits and homework. However, the Board is concerned that the Applicant foster mother did not herself follow up when she did not hear from the Early Interventionist. Her testimony was that she was not concerned because the child got help at school. This represents a lack of understanding of the importance of reinforcing and doing the therapies at home to facilitate faster progress. As noted above, the child learns by repetition and observation. What is done at school must be reinforced in the home and it is important for a caregiver to acknowledge the significance of this need. While the Applicant foster mother did buy the child some toys as recommended, she delayed in putting together the home made tools recommended by the Early Interventionist. The evidence was that the child did not make significant progress until he was in school part-time in the fall of 2010. School was reinforcing therapies with the help of the Early Interventionist.

67The lack of follow through discussed above reflects an inability or unwillingness to take steps to deal with family issues based on professional advice. This is concerning where parenting a child with special needs is involved. The lack of complete follow through with respect to the child and [E.] does not reassure the Board that the Applicants can or will take all necessary steps to follow through on advice given regarding the child as he grows up.

68The Applicants could have had more supports. At times they reached out or were in crisis and the Society was not sufficiently responsive. However, as an adoptive parent, as distinct from a foster parent, the Applicants need to be able to reach out, obtain help and follow through. They did not seek out [Program] in the community. They did not ensure that their daughter saw counseling through until discharge from the counselor. They did not follow up with early intervention when there were gaps, but left it in the hands of the interventionist because they did not appreciate the importance of doing the work at home. There are some positives: they have asked for the child to be moved to an older preschool group (and are being blocked). They have used a foster parent as a resource and advocate. They eventually identified dietary needs. However, the preponderance of evidence points to inadequate reaching out to supports linked to a lack of understanding of the needs of the child or children involved. This, combined with the limited understanding of what the [child’s] [ ] future special needs might entail, is of significant concern to the Board.

Prospective Adoptive Home

69The Board heard some evidence about the prospective adoptive parents who were matched with the child. The Board saw their homestudy. The Board will not engage in a comparison with the Applicants because it is not necessary to do so. This is so because the Board has found that the Applicants are not an appropriate adoptive placement for the child separate and apart from what other options there may be. It is incumbent on the Society to find a home for the child that meets and will meet his special needs.

Process

70The Society chose to close the Applicants’ foster home through a process that might be considered questionable. For example, they did not allow time for follow up in terms of the recommendations from intake regarding exposing the children to conflict, nor did they consult with the child’s worker who had a positive working relationship with the Applicants, but was away. Instead, they based the decision on a poor working relationship and the finding regarding the June […], 2010 conflict. Further, the Applicants had positive Annual Foster Parent reviews and apparently concerns about communication had only surfaced in the last six months. However, this case is not about the closure of the foster home. It is about the [child’s] [ ] best interests in terms of placement for adoption.

Continuity of Care

71The Board must consider and weigh the issue of attachment, continuity of care and the impact of disruption of continuity of care. There was no dispute that the child called the Applicant foster mother “mom” and that he is attached to her as his primary caregiver. He does not like it when she leaves the house. No witness gave any examples of the child’s attachment to the Applicant foster father expect generally in that the child is treated as part of the Applicant’s family. The child does not deal well with change. A disruption of his continuity of care would impact on him emotionally. According to the Adoption Supervisor, because he is securely attached, he can re-form a new attachment with supports. The Board is cognizant of the trauma that the child will face, especially given his developmental age and his lack of understanding of the situation. This must be weighed against the ability of the Applicants to meet his short and long term needs. The Board finds that first and foremost, this child’s family must be able to meet his special needs, which will continue into adulthood. Continuity of care is important and the child will experience trauma. However, the Board’s only evidence on attachment was that with supports, the impact will be mitigated. Where the Applicants are not in a position to meet the child’s special needs, this could have a life long negative impact on the child. In these circumstances, special needs must “trump” continuity of care issues.

72The Society’s plan is to place the child in an adoptive home that will permit contact with the Applicants. The Board did not hear evidence from a developmental psychologist about what role the Applicants could or should play once the child moves on to an adoptive home. Given the child’s delays, involvement of a psychologist would be prudent in the transition process and regarding any plan for ongoing contact.

Sibling/Biological Family Contact

73The Society is open to placing the child in a home that will allow sibling and extended family contact. The Applicants have facilitated this contact. This factor does not affect the Board’s decision in this case because no party is suggesting that sibling and extended family contact cannot or should not occur. The Society’s position on extended family contact is not clear because the issue came up during the Applicants’ case. However, the Society did not challenge this type of contact in its cross-examination or submissions. In any case, the Board did hear evidence that [the child] sees his family as “people that he knows” and doesn’t necessarily understand them to have a particular bond to him. This may be relevant in the long term in terms of transition planning and the Board will address this issue below.

CONCLUSION

74The Applicants have faced and are facing great strains and hardship in their lives. They are dealing with the serious state of the Applicant foster father’s health. They are dealing with the aftermath of the June […], 2010 investigation and the impact on their livelihood as foster parents and the impact on their family. They have taken steps and made progress, but health issues are beyond their control and no contingency plan has been put in place. They lack the necessary level of understanding of the [child’s] [ ] needs as a special needs child who will become a special needs adult. They have failed to follow through at times, where important concerns existed.

75[The child] requires consistency, stability and parents who are available to him physically and emotionally to parent him. He requires parents who can understand or get the help needed to understand and meet his needs.

76The Applicant foster parents are not in a position to meet the child’s special needs on an ongoing basis, as required.

77In terms of transition, the Board heard evidence about the child’s developmental stage and the impact of change and separation on him. The Society testified that a short, intense transition would be utilized. The Board recommends that the Society immediately consult with a developmental psychologist regarding the appropriate type and duration of transition, including what level of contact the child should have with the Applicants and his biological family in the short and longer term. The psychologist should be involved throughout the transition process.

DECISION

78It is not in the child’s best interests to be placed for adoption with the Applicants and thus the adoption application should not proceed.

79The Board confirms the decision of the Society to refuse the Applicants’ application to adopt the [child] [ ] born November […], 2006.

Sheena Scott

Presiding Member

Andrea Himel

Panel Member

__________________________ Alina Lazor

Panel Member