J.C. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2012 CFSRB 26

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.C.

v.

Durham Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: July 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 26

Indexed as: J.C. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1J.C. the (“Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to subsection 61 of the Child and Family Services Act (“Act”) on December 15, 2011. The Applicant requested a review of the decision by the Durham Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) to remove the [four] foster children, [ born between 2005 and 2008 ], (the “Children” or “boys”) from her Kinship Foster home on December [ ], 2011. During the course of the hearing the Applicant indicated that she was seeking a return of only one of the children, [the child] to her care.

2The Society took the position that the Children were at risk in the Applicant’s home because she had failed to disclose information relating to their safety, welfare and best interests while they were in her care. Therefore, the Society’s position was that none of the Children could be returned to her care.

3In accordance with section 61(8.6) of the Act the Board must decide what action is in the best interests of the child [ ] and either confirm the Society’s decision to remove the Children or direct the Society to return [the child] to the Applicant’s care.

4The Board after considering the best interests of the four children confirms the decision of the Society to remove the Children from the Applicant’s Kinship Foster Home.

5The Society also submitted that although it was not challenging the jurisdiction of the Board to review the application, it believed that the Board did not have the jurisdiction with respect to remedy. The Society’s position is that the Board could not order the Society to return the Children to the Applicant’s home because it is closed as a foster home. The Board does not address this issue in its reasons because it confirmed the Society’s decision.

OTHER ISSUES

Case for Contempt to the Divisional Court

6On April [ ], 2012 R.L., [“the witness”] a witness called by the Society attended the hearing and refused to testify. The Board in an interim decision dated April 12, 2012 stated a case for contempt to the Divisional Court. [The witness] appeared before the Board on May [ ], 2012, as a witness of the Applicant. On that date, [the witness] attended at the hearing and provided sworn testimony to the Board. Further the Society had the opportunity to test his evidence through cross examination. In doing so the Board finds that the grounds under which the Order was made in the decision of April [ ], 2012 no longer exist, as the defect was cured on May [ ], 2012. As such the Board directs that its statement for contempt to the Divisional Court made April [ ], 2012 is of no effect as of May [ ], 2012.

BACKGROUND

7The Children were placed in the Applicant’s care as a kin-in-care foster home beginning with [the child] shortly after his birth in October 2008, [ ] was placed in March 2009 and [ ] and [ ] were placed in April 2009. All of the children subsequently became Crown Wards.

8At the time of placement the Applicant was residing in [city a] along with her mother, [ ], and her children [ ]. The Applicant and her family moved to [city b] in July 2009 and later to [city c] in December 2010. While residing in [city b] the Society received an anonymous complaint alleging that the children were exposed to adult conflict. The caller alleged that the Applicant and her partner frequently argued and swore in front of the children; that the partner was in and out of the home; and that the applicant’s son who was residing in the home engaged in criminal activity.

9The Society launched a Serious Occurrence Investigation (‘‘SOI”) which verified that the children had been exposed to adult conflict. A Serious Occurrence Investigation is launched by a Society whenever there is a serious incident or occurrence in a foster home and through this investigation the Society first became aware that the Applicant had been taking methadone to deal with her addiction/narcotic dependency. The Society also obtained information that [the witness], who the Applicant denied being in a relationship with, was actually residing with her during the time that the Children were living in the home. The investigation also revealed that the Applicant had chronic financial issues.

10The Board heard evidence from:

• Applicant, [ ]
• Behavioral Consultant, [ ]
• Bus Driver, [ ]
• Children’s Service Worker, [ ]
• Clinical Case Support, [ ]
• Current Kinship Worker, [ ]
• [ ] Child and Family Services and [ ] Foster Care Support, [ ]
• Former Kinship Services Worker, [ ]
• Foster Care Services Supervisor, [ ]
• Kinship Program Supervisor, [ ]
• Landlords [ ], [ ] and [ ]
• Maternal Great Uncle of the [ ] Children, [the witness]
• Serious Occurrence Team Worker; [ ]
• Serious Occurrence Worker; [ ]
• Speech Therapist, Beyond Words; [ ]
• Volunteer Driver for the Society; [ ]

11After a 10-day hearing on the merits of the application, the Board determined that it is not in the best interests of any of the Children to be returned to the Applicant’s care and confirms the Society’s decision to remove all the Children from the Applicant’s home.

ANALYSIS

12The Board had to determine what action was in the best interests of the children: to be returned to the foster care of the Applicant or not, keeping in mind that the overriding principle of the Act is the best interests of the child.

13The Board considered the legislative provisions in Section 37(3) of the Act as it relates to the best interests of the Child, particularly the following relevant considerations in arriving at its decision.

1. The Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care and or treatment to meet these needs;

2. The importance of continuity in the Child’s care and the impact of its disruption,

3. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a sibling(s) and member of the child’s extended family

4. The merits of a plan for the Child’s care proposed by the Society,

5. Any other relevant circumstance.

14In arriving at this decision the Board looked at the following seven areas in terms of how they impacted the best interests of the children:

• The Applicant’s financial situation

• The Applicant’s use of methadone

• The Applicant’s relationship with [the witness]

• The Applicant’s failure to consistently meet the children’s physical, emotional and developmental needs and to use available resources

• The Children’s concerning behaviours; The Society’s Plan

• The Applicant’s Relationship with and Plan to Care for [the child]; Continuity of Care and the impact of disruption

• The level of trust between the Applicant and the Society

The applicant’s financial situation

15The Board determined that the Applicant’s inability to manage her finances has impacted on her ability to care for the children and meet their emotional and physical needs. The Board understands that as a foster parent, the Applicant gets a monthly per diem to meet the children’s needs and is not expected to plan financially for the children or child as she would in an adoption situation; however, the Applicant has mis-managed the allotted funds to the detriment of the children, as set out below.

16The Society pays thirty dollars ($30.00) per day for shelter and food for each child. Clothing and hygiene needs are reimbursable and dental and medical care is covered by the Society’s insurance plan. The Society’s expectation is that parents will manage their finances successfully as well as provide for the basic needs of the children in their care. In this case the Society also funded day care costs for the boys to ensure that they had an opportunity to socialize with other children out side of the home. The Kinship Care Supervisor reported that the Society additionally provided two sums of nine hundred dollars ($900.00) as well as three thousand, three hundred dollars ($3,300.00) in startup payments to cover basic items like bedding etc. for the boys.

17The evidence before the Board is that the Applicant received one hundred and forty nine thousand, three hundred and ninety three dollars from the Society during the period 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. This payment averages four thousand, five hundred and twenty seven dollars ($4,527.00) monthly and is non- taxable. The Applicant testified that her daughter [ ] was on social assistance and she contributed five hundred dollars ($500.00) monthly to the household. Additionally the Applicant collected child tax of four hundred dollars ($400.00) monthly for her son [ ] as well as one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200.00) monthly from her mother. From the Board’s estimation the Applicant received six thousand, six hundred and twenty seven dollars ($6,627.00) per month to care for the Children and her family.

18The Children’s first home after they were placed with the Applicant was located in [city a] and she owned this home with [the witness]. The Applicant testified that she stopped paying the mortgage on the [city a] home and allowed it to go into foreclosure in July 2009, because [the witness] would not renew the mortgage. He wanted to extract his principal of forty thousand dollars and she could not obtain a new mortgage on the property alone. The family moved to [city c] in the summer of 2009, (shortly after the placement of all the Children in the home), where she rented a larger home for the boys, her mother, herself and her son [ ].

19The Former Kinship Services Worker had placed the boys in day care in [city a] in 2009 to give them the opportunity to socialize and to give the Applicant a break as the four young boys were demanding and difficult for one parent to manage. After the move to [city b] [the children] and [the child] were placed in a new day care centre in July 2009 and [ ] started junior kindergarten.

20The Applicant’s [city b] landlord telephoned the Society on April 15, 2010 to report that the Applicant owed him one thousand seven hundred dollars ($1,700.00) for unpaid rent. The Applicant acknowledged to the Society that she owed this sum and that she was working on a payment plan. She also reported to the Society that she was behind in her payments because [the witness] had stolen one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) from her.

21During his testimony before the Board, [the witness] denied stealing any money from the Applicant while she lived in [city b].

22The [city b] landlord testified to returned rent cheques from the Applicant and delayed payments during the term of their contract. He stated that the Applicant on one occasion told him that someone had broken into the home and stolen her money so she did not have the payment and after that she told him that there was an infestation of bed bugs.

23The [city b] landlord also gave evidence that the Applicant moved out of his property on December [ ], 2010 leaving behind an unpaid bill of one thousand, four hundred and eighty nine dollars ($1,489.00) for water/sewer and water reconnection service.

24The Applicant disputed this amount during the hearing stating that she did not owe that much despite an email brought into evidence dated February [ ], 2011 from the landlord informing the Applicant that she owed him one thousand four hundred and fifty seven dollars and ninety one cents ($1,457.91) for water. An earlier response from the Applicant in this string of email states that “I will deposit the money into your account” referring to a lesser sum as the landlord believed that the payments were up-to-date when the Applicant vacated the home. On receipt of the final statement he found that the Applicant had moved out of the home leaving the account in arrears.

25The Applicant testified that she moved from the [city b] home because of a recurring infestation of bedbugs. She also testified to throwing out three sets of beds and two couches because of the infestation.

26In his testimony [the witness] stated that he could only remember putting beds at the curb for garbage pickup once during that period.

27The Society stated that on September [ ], 2010 the Applicant was advised of the contact information for a bug eradication company to “prep” the home for which it would cover the cost. On September [ ], the Applicant advised the Society that she had not yet contacted the company. On October [ ], the Society enquired into the status and the Applicant had still not made contact. Further enquires on October [ ] and [ ] produced no new results. The status did not change until October [ ], when the Applicant reported that she had made an appointment for November [ ], 2010. [One of the children] was ill on that day and the appointment had to be cancelled. Bed bugs were found on November [ ], prompting the Applicant to move to [city c] in December 2010.

28The Applicant did not accept that the Society’s notes were accurate regarding the issue of the bed bug follow up dates and that she was negligent in pursuing eradication services for the home but she could not refute any of the Society evidence or remember the dates when the exterminator visited her home.

29In July 2011 the Applicant reported to the Society that her purse containing three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) was stolen at the supermarket and therefore she had no money to pay the bills for the [city c] home. The Applicant testified before the Board that she paid her bills in cash on receipt of her per diem which is why she had such a large amount of cash in her purse.

30Gas service was disconnected from the [city c] home in the summer of 2011 and the Applicant took the children to the “Y” so that they could shower. [The witness] testified that he did not realize that the gas was disconnected. He believed it was “broken” and he took the kids to his brother’s place for showers. He also testified that food was in the house when he was there and that he did not know that the Applicant had financial issues.

31The Society provided the Applicant with food vouchers in the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars ($120.00) on this occasion and in view of the ongoing financial difficulties she received a per diem advance. The worker testified that there were internal discussions regarding how to help the Applicant with her financial management and the Children’s Worker took the lead on this task.

32During September 2011, the Applicant advised the Society that her van would be repossessed and she would not have any transportation to take the Children to their appointments. The Society gave the Applicant two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) to prevent seizure of the van, to pay for insurance and to purchase groceries. This was a onetime disbursement in addition to the Applicant’s per diem.

33The Applicant fell behind with her rent payments in [city c] and her new landlord threatened to evict the family. The Applicant subsequently worked out a payment plan with her landlord and requested that the Society pay the landlord directly from her per diem in November 2011, December 2011, January 2012 and February 2012 to clear up the arrears.

34With the Society’s permission, [the witness] moved into the basement apartment of the [city c] home on November [ ], 2011 to help with the rent, because the Applicant’s daughter had moved out of the home unexpectedly and the Applicant could not afford to pay the rent alone. The prohibition regarding his being alone with the Children was still in effect.

35As a result of the Applicant’s chaotic financial affairs and her inability to manage her financial obligations during the course of their contractual relationship, the Society obtained a copy of her credit report. The agency needed a clear picture of her financial status as it related to the care of the children. It was introduced into evidence along with a police report dated February, 1990.

36The Society’s Undertaking was signed by the Applicant on September [ ], 2008 stating that she had two criminal convictions. The Society believed the Applicant’s explanations, and since the charges were historical and did not involve harm to children, the Society took no further action to investigate the Applicants criminal background prior to the Children’s placement. The Applicant’s explanation to the Society was that she wrote one bad cheque for diapers however the police report stated that fourteen fraudulent withdrawals were made from her account. Further scrutiny also revealed she declared bankruptcy on two occasions.

37In her testimony to the Board the Applicant stated that she wrote a “NSF” cheque for diapers on a closed account and the fraud which had been reported by the Society was in fact child support payments from her children’s father which he had withdrawn on a joint account. The Applicant further stated that he must have re-paid this amount to the bank as she does not remember going to court about this matter. She also disclaimed knowledge about most of the recorded bad debts listed on her credit report.

38The Applicant had informed the Society that she expected an inheritance from an unknown member of her biological family and she entered into evidence an email dated October [ ], 2011, stating that “money is ready to be transferred into your account” from [unknown member of family] as proof that the inheritance was imminent. The Applicant’s response to this email reflected unusual business practice for a large legitimate financial settlement as she wrote “I do not have any money at all. You will have to pay it all” in reply to [unknown member of family’s] statement that “money” was necessary to complete the transaction.

39The Applicant also entered into evidence an email dated May [ ], 2012 to [ ] a member of the [ ] Police Service in which she complains of “scammers”. [A member of Regional Police Service] in an earlier email dated February [ ], 2012 had referred the Applicant to the Canadian Anti Fraud Center because she complained that she had been “ripped of” in the amount thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000.00).

40[The witness’] testimony before the Board was that he believed the Applicant’s inheritance was internet fraud. The Applicant in her testimony re-stated her belief that she would be inheriting over five million dollars ($5M) from an unknown relative although she did not support this assertion with any credible documentation.

41During the hearing the Applicant denied struggling with financial issues either now or in the past. She believed things were ‘OK” despite having to declare bankruptcy in 2004, and in 1989 and allowing her home to be foreclosed in 2009. She could not remember the details of the numerous debts listed on her credit report or the current debt owed to her [city b] landlord nor did she provide any credible explanations as to why these bills were unpaid. It is her belief that the credit report was inaccurate and she testified that she intends to take the necessary steps to rectify this inaccuracy.

42The Board finds that the Applicant’s plan for the Child [ ] presents significant financial concerns. The Applicant testified that she cannot return to work, she has no home of her own and is currently living in a one bedroom apartment with three other persons. She believes that she will qualify for financial aid, however at present this is not a reality. The Applicant’s mother has two thousand five hundred dollars ($2500.00) which she is willing to use for a down payment for an apartment if [the child] is returned to the Applicant’s care. The Applicant also stated that she had some coins which she believes might be valuable which she would cash in to support the child.

43Although the Applicant would have the foster parent allowance, the Board finds that due to the applicant’s historical as well as current financial difficulties it would be difficult for her to adequately care for a child. The Applicant’s financial history contains bankruptcies, foreclosure of her [city a] home, a long history of unpaid bills, a history of fraud, interaction with scammers, the loss of large amounts of cash, the inability to manage a home and the inability to make and control a house hold budget. The Children whilst in the Applicants care were subject to the risk of eviction from their home, seizure of their transportation which took them to appointments, uninsured transportation, and the discomfort of not having hot baths due to the disconnection of gas from their home

44The Applicant has been unable to meet her financial responsibilities in spite of the money she received monthly to care for the children and consequently she has been unable to maintain a stable home for the children. The Society in an attempt to preserve a stable placement for these children offered additional financial support to her, providing additional money and early per-diem payments, however, the ongoing situations which required this intervention by the Society were becoming more frequent.

45The Applicant did not accept any responsibility for any of the financial difficulties which she has faced. She blames others, her previous partners, the bedbugs, and the inaccuracy of her credit reports, for the financial situation portrayed through the Society’s evidence. Instead, she has developed a sense of magical thinking- that she will receive a multi-million dollar inheritance from an unknown relative, or that if she sells some coins she has, she would have enough money to plan for [the child]. Her inability to accept reality, recognize the severity of her financial situation and take appropriate steps to rectify the situation, compromises her ability to be a caregiver to children.

The Applicant’s use of methadone

46The Board finds that the Applicant’s handling of her methadone use with the Society and her storage of the drug, negatively impacted on her ability to be a caregiver. The physical health of the children was and could be placed at risk based on the Applicant’s history in this regard.

47The Foster Care Service Supervisor testified that the Society worked on a basis of trust with the foster/kin parents after the initial assessment and the expectation is that the parents will be cooperative and honest with the Society in providing regular updated information regarding medical information.

48The Applicant’s medical information was outstanding from the home study and despite three requests it remained that way for eight months. The Kinship Care Supervisor testified that page eighteen of the Safe Home Study Report noted that the medical reference has not been “completed” and that the Applicant had an appointment with her family doctor on February [ ], 2009. The report was not completed until November [ ], 2009 by [the doctor a] without any indication of the Applicant’s methadone usage.

49Additionally, an annual medical update signed by the Applicant on January [ ], 2010 and again on January [ ], 2011 was brought into evidence and states that there was “no medical situations which could affect the Applicant’s ability to act as caregiver to the children”. These updates also state that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to inform the Society of any medical changes; however, the Applicant did not report any.

50[The witness’] sister [ ] had informed the Society during the Serious Occurrence Investigation that the Applicant took methadone. This was confirmed by [the witness] which led to a meeting on December [ ], 2011, between the Serious Occurrence Worker, the Kinship Care Worker, the Children’s Service Worker and the Applicant to discuss the allegations.

51The Applicant admitted to the Society during the Serious Occurrence Investigation that she has been taking methadone since 2002 when she had discontinued pain medication because of an injury. She further admitted to taking methadone under medical supervision and stated that she usually obtains “carries” which are daily doses of methadone given to her by the doctor.

52On verifying the Applicant’s methadone use, the Society requested that she obtain a letter from her doctor detailing use/history as it had concerns that she might be using this medication inappropriately by not disclosing the methadone use to other doctors who might prescribe pain medication for her.

53A letter from the [ ] [Healthcare Consultants] dated December [ ], 2011 was brought into evidence by the Society which states that the Applicant “has been positive for codeine only over the past six months, perhaps three times. Copies of urine drug screens to follow”

54The Society also brought into evidence the medical records from [ ] [Healthcare Consultants] which indicates a number of “caution” and “penalty” with regards to the Applicants Urine Screens as the Applicant was not allowed to take morphine while on the program.

55In her testimony before the Board the Applicant stated that she started taking Oxycontin and Percocet in 1995/96 for pain while she was working in a factory. In 2006, her family doctor, [doctor b] recommended that she should commence taking methadone. Having visited the methadone clinic daily for almost a year, she was given “carries”, which are child proof bottles of methadone and Tang mixed together in single doses, so she could decrease her visits to the clinic for medication from daily to weekly.

56The Applicant was unable to remember the dosage of Oxycontin or the dosage of Percocet which she took prior to being weaned off these medications. She believes she got one hundred tablets monthly of each medication but she did not know the strength of each tablet. She takes 140 milligrams of methadone daily which she describes as a high dosage.

57The Applicant further testified that she visited a doctor in [city d] whose name she did not know and received Oxycontin and Percocet from him for a brief period of time without telling him that she was also taking methadone and this was approved by her clinic.

58The Foster Care Supervisor testified that foster parents must ensure that all medication is locked away from children as is required by ministry standards and the society’s policies. The Applicant assured the workers during the investigation that the “carries” were kept locked in a box as required by the Society. After the workers requested to see the box, the Applicant revealed that there was no locked box in the home in which to keep the medication. The carries were stored unlocked on a shelf in her bed room where [the child] slept, in breach of the Society’s Home Safety Checklist signed July [ ], 2009 by the Applicant.

59The Applicant breached the Society’s Safe Home policy firstly by not disclosing that she used methadone and secondly by not storing this medication in a locked box as is required for the safety of the children. The Kinship Care Supervisor testified that the Society would not approve a kinship home with methadone use without supporting medical information. She stated that the Society’s license would be in jeopardy and that the Society believed that this was a significant risk as no disclosure had been made by the Applicant regarding her medical condition.

60The Applicant in her testimony said that she was embarrassed because of the stigma attached to methadone use and only told her mother, her daughter, and [the witness] when she started the program. She acknowledged that she had deceived the Society about her medical condition and that she had informed the workers that there was a lock box in the home when there was none. She had purchased one after the meeting to ensure that the medication was safely stored. The Applicant also testified that she had concealed her methadone use from her family doctor but she has subsequently disclosed this information and is seeking medical follow up.

61The Board finds that the Applicant misled the Society and a number of her physicians regarding her methadone use. She delayed providing medical information to the Society and knowingly withheld significant information regarding her methadone use/opiate addiction for which the Society would have required supporting medical information in order to approve her as a caregiver for the Children.

62The Applicant further attempted to deceive the Society by informing the workers that the medication was properly stored although there was no locked box in the home in which to keep the medication safely out of the reach of the four active boys who lived in the home

63The Board finds that the Children were at significant risk of harm in the applicant’s care due to her methadone use. Her full medical history was unknown as she deceived both the Society and her doctors about her use of methadone. The Society was therefore unable to accurately assess her ability to care for the children prior to the children being placed there. The applicant also subsequently exposed the children to physical danger by improperly storing medication, especially her high doses of methadone, which was kept unlocked in her room, where [the child] slept. While the Applicant admitted to being embarrassed because of the stigma attached to methadone use, she failed to consider the dangers to which she exposed the four Children by not being honest and truthful with the Society and her clinicians.

64It is important that the Society can trust the foster parents who they delegate to care for Crown Wards. As the legal guardians of these children, the Society expects that there would be a higher standard of care, since these children were removed from their parents who were not able to care for them. The Board finds that the Applicant in being dishonest with the Society about her methadone use and storage breached that trust that a Society would expect of a foster parent.

65This factor alone would have led the Board to the conclusion that the children, including [the child], should not be in the Applicant’s care.

The Applicant’s relationship with [the witness]

66The Board finds that the Applicant’s relationship with [the witness] and her dishonesty with the Society in this regard put and could put the children at risk of emotional harm.

67The Applicant was approved as a care giver to the four boys on October [ ], 2008, however, [the witness] was not approved because his assessment was not complete. The Society deemed that a reassessment and “additional information regarding [the witness] mental health and criminal background” would be necessary should the Applicant reconcile with him. As well, the Applicant was informed that [the witness] should not be left alone with the boys because he was not an approved caregiver.

68[The witness] is the uncle of the biological mother of the four Children.

He testified that the Society held a meeting of family members to see if anyone could care for the Children and unexpectedly during the drive to the meeting the Applicant asked him if he would take one or two of the boys. He said yes if she would be the caregiver. The Society wanted to place the family together and no one could accommodate all four boys. At that point the Applicant suggested to [the witness] that they should take all four boys.

69Both of the children’s biological parents are intellectually delayed and additionally their father has mental health issues. The parents were unable to care for their children and agreed to place the four boys (one unborn) with the Applicant and [the witness].

70In September 2008 the Applicant and [the witness] were in the process of completing a kinship care assessment with the hopes of having all four Children placed with them. The Former Care Worker, in her testimony stated that on October [ ], 2008 she raised concerns about [the witness] mental health with the couple and asked that he provide further information. On October [ ], 2008, the Applicant advised that she was no longer planning to care for the Children with [the witness] because of an anger outburst. The Applicant in her testimony to the Board confirmed that she had terminated their relationship because he had made her mother cry.

71The Applicant, as part of the extended family, felt a close bond with the Children as she had been present at each child’s birth except for [one of the boys] and she had developed a close relationship with the three oldest boys. When the fourth child [the child] was born, he went home with her directly from the hospital and she developed an even stronger bond with him.

72The Former Kinship Services Worker testified that she became the family resource worker on March [ ], 2009 and she attended the home regularly on a monthly basis. Her responsibilities included arranging relief and supports as required from community agencies. The worker reported that [the witness] was still involved with the family in March 2009 and she saw him in the home although she understood that the relationship between him and the Applicant had ended. She was aware that he was not allowed to be alone with the children without the supervision of an approved caregiver.

73She met with [the witness] on June [ ], 2009 because he wanted to be involved in the children’s care. The Society again requested criminal and medical information from him in order to complete his assessment and [the witness] again decided not to proceed with the application.

74[The witness’] testimony before the Board was that the Society wanted to know all of the information regarding his suicide attempts and he did not want to give out that information so he discontinued the assessments. During the Serious Occurrence Investigation he reported that his relationship with the Applicant had not ended in 2008 as the Applicant had reported to the Society and in fact he had lived with the family, including the Children, in [city a], [city b] and [city c].

75The evidence before the Board showed that in 2009 the Applicant and [the witness] both indicated that they were in a dating relationship and that [the witness] was residing at [the applicant’s] home. A [ ] Regional Police General Occurrence Information dated September [ ], 2009, when [the witness] was arrested reads “[The witness] and [the applicant] have been in a dating relationship for the past five years.” Another report dated November [ ], 2009 states “spoke with [the applicant] who advised that her boyfriend, [the witness]”. This report also shows [the witness’] address to be the same as the Applicant’s and the Children. The Applicant did not report either of these instances when the police attended the home, although she is required to do so as a foster parent.

76[The witness] during his testimony before the Board insisted that he was living with his cousin at this time and could not recall what had happened because he had popped pills in a suicide attempt. The Applicant’s evidence is that the police recorded the information incorrectly.

77[The worker], [from an agency] provided in home support and respite for the family in both the [city b] home and the [city c] home. She testified that the boys, grandmother, [ ], [ ] (Applicant’s oldest son) and the Applicant lived in [city b]. She believes [her daughter] moved in with them in [city c] and lived upstairs with the family whilst the Applicant’s two sons lived in the flat downstairs. She saw [the witness] in the home five times during the year when he came to help the Applicant. She testified that [the witness] was never alone with the children but [one of the boys] would have a difficult time separating from [the witness] and he would cry and be visibly upset.

78The Children’s Service Worker testified that he saw [the witness] in the home twenty four (24) times during his monthly visits and the speech therapist testified that a gentleman was sometimes present in the fall of 2011, who she met in the home as [one of the boys’] uncle.

79[ ], volunteer driver, who transported [the child] to school daily in [city c] and [ ], the bus driver who transported [the boys] to school, both testified that they often saw [the witness] at the home in Oshawa during the course of their involvement with the children. [The witness] was either alone with the children or in the company of the Applicant.

80In a Durham Region C.A.S, Case Note dated November [ ], 2011 the Applicant told her worker that [the witness] had stayed the night on October [ ], 2011- “he always comes on Fridays”. [The witness] was only permitted by the Society to move into the home on November [ ], 2011.

81The Applicant reported to the Children’s Service Worker on December [ ], 2011 that [the witness] had visited the home drunk while they lived in [city b] (the family had moved on December [ ], 2010 one year earlier) and that the police attended the home and spoke to her boys but the Children did not know of this incident because they were upstairs at that time. This breach of policy was only revealed because of the Serious Occurrence Investigation.

82A [Police] Criminal Information Request dated September [ ], 2008 indicates that between 1991 and 2003 [the witness] was charged with possession of narcotics, and driving with more than 80 MGS of alcohol in his blood on two occasions. The Society also submitted [Hospital], Medical Records indicating that [the witness] had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues.

83During the June 2009, second investigation of [the witness] by the Society the worker became aware of domestic violence issues in the home of [the witness] and his ex-wife as revealed by family court documents. The Applicant attempted to get the information required by the Society from [the witness’] ex- wife’s family without success.

84The Serious Occurrence Team Worker, testified that an anonymous person reported to the Society on November [ ], 2011, that there was yelling, screaming, arguing and fighting between the Applicant and her boyfriend at her home. The Society launched an investigation in accordance with the Child Protection Standards in Ontario during which the Applicant denied that she had a relationship with [the witness]. [The witness] was interviewed on December [ ], 2011 on the telephone and later that day in the presence of his sister [ ] and her husband [ ]. He indicated that he had moved out of the Applicant’s home after he had an argument with her regarding [one of the boys] and later [the daughter] made him upset. He reported that he and the Applicant argued once every four to six weeks on average and that they yell, scream, and swear at each other. He stated that the children would hear these arguments. He also reported that his relationship with the Applicant had not ended in 2008 as they had previously told the Society.

85The Children Service Worker stated that he was at the [Hotel] on January [ ], 2012 with regards to this hearing when [the witness] arrived at the hotel. At first he was frustrated and angry because he had been subpoenaed to attend the hearing but [the witness] spoke to supervisor [ ] after which he sat at a table with the Kinship Service Program Supervisor and the Children’s Service Worker and he engaged them in conversation. [The witness] was calm by this time and of his own accord talked about the ongoing relationship between him and the Applicant and how they hid their relationship from the Society. He said that the Society visits were always scheduled and he would leave home when they were expected. He stated that because there were no unannounced visits it was easy to fool the Society. [The witness] indicated that he spent short periods of time away from the home due to arguments but he had lived with the Applicant in [city a], [city b] and [city c]. He also stated that the bus drivers would confirm that he was alone with the children sometimes.

86During his testimony before the Board [the witness] minimized the incident of [one of the boys] soiling and [the daughter’s] argument as a disagreement not a fight. He maintained that he was living with his cousin during the [city b] incident and could not remember what address he gave to the police because of the pills. He could not explain why the Applicant had described him as her “boyfriend” to the police or why she said that his address was the same as hers and the boys. [The witness] acknowledged his frequent visits to the Applicants home explaining that before and after work he visited the Applicant to help with the children on average three times per week in [city c] and twice per week in [city b].

87The Applicant confirmed that during the time the family lived in [city c] [the witness] visited the house a “lot” in her testimony to the Board. In April he came every day and she estimated that he was in the home three months out of five months; before work and after work but never staying overnight. In a Durham Region C.A.S, Case Note dated November [ ], 2011 the Applicant told her worker that “[the witness] stayed the night- he always comes on Fridays” in complete contradiction of her testimony before the Board.

88The worker testified that [the witness] said that he and the Applicant would yell and scream at each other with the children present. They quarreled about how much money the Applicant spent on bingo and also about the significant amount of money which [the witness] said that the Applicant took out of his bank account. He implied that the Applicant was not spending money on the children for food and clothing rather she spent it on bingo.

89The Society interviewed the four Children separately and the majority of them reported arguments between the Applicant and [the witness]. Based on those conversations the Society verified that there was adult conflict in the home to which the children were exposed.

90The Applicant stated that she started to play bingo 3 weeks before the children left. [The witness] testified before the Board that he took the Applicant and her mother to bingo once a month and she bought too many cards in his opinion. Two of the children confirmed that bingo was one of the issues that the Applicant and [the witness] fought about. [The witness’] testimony was consistent with the Children’s statement.

91[The witness] stated that he could not read and sometimes when he did actually read something he would forget it in ten minutes. He further stated that he has been tested by a doctor for this condition as well as for his memory which was not good. The witness admitted to lying in court because he did not like or trust the government but he assured the panel that his testimony was truthful during the hearing. [The witness] testified that he and the Applicant argued every three months on average but he did not swear or punch the walls. He further stated when “I talk I am loud” so people think I am arguing.

92[The witness] had referred the Society to the Bus Drivers for verification that he was sometimes alone with the Children and this was confirmed by both drivers. He had informed Society personnel that he argued and fought with the Applicant in front of the Children about numerous issues including bingo which was verified by the Society and he maintained that the relationship between the Applicant and himself was ongoing as confirmed by the Applicant in the [city b] Police Reports and her disclosure to her worker that [the witness] stayed the night.

93In his testimony before the Board [the witness] retracted his earlier statements to the Society and claimed that his relationship with the Applicant ended when they left [city a], that they did not fight in front of the Children and that he was never alone with the Children despite his and his sister’s earlier reports to the Society stating the contrary. The Board noted [the witness’] conflicting testimony; however it was persuaded by the Society’s evidence which proved that the two earlier versions of [the witness’] report were verifiable.

94Since the children have been removed from the home they have all independently confirmed that there was ongoing conflict in the home between [the witness] and the Applicant. [One of the boys] has told the Society that he did not want to go back to the Applicant’s home because they argued and say “bitch and F idiot” to him. He wanted to remain in his current placement.

95The Board finds that the Applicant and [the witness] deceived the Society over a protracted period of time with regards to his presence in the home. The Applicant was aware that [the witness] was not an approved caregiver because the Society had been unable to complete his criminal and mental health check on two occasions. The evidence shows that he was alone with the Children regularly and he was observed in the home by many of the children’s caregivers. Given [the witness’] mental health issues and history of substance abuse it was even more important that his exposure to the children be supervised.

96The Applicant again breached the Society’s trust in denying that [the witness] was exposed to the children on a regular basis and not reporting instances where police attended at the home. In doing so the Applicant failed to meet the Society’s expectation of a safe home for the Children free of emotional and physical risks. The Board therefore finds that due to the Applicant’s lack of judgment in this regard, she failed to meet the expectations of a foster parent.

97The Board also finds that the adult conflict in the home affected the Children and posed an unacceptable level of risk. The Board finds that it is not in [the child’s] best interest to be placed in a home which is subject to an unacceptable level of risk.

The Applicant’s failure to consistently meet the children’s physical, emotional and developmental needs and to use available resources.

98The Board finds that the Applicant did not consistently meet the children’s needs and failed to use available resources to meet their emotional and developmental requirements. Therefore, it is most likely that the Applicant would not be able to appropriately meet the Child [the child’s] needs in future.

99After his birth on October [ ], 2008, [the child] was placed in the Applicant’s care on a Supervision Order. The Applicant was approved as Kinship Care Parent for the four boys in February 2009 and gradually the three other boys were placed in the home; [ ] on March [ ], 2009, [ ] and [ ] on April [ ], 2009. The original plan was for reunification of the family however that plan changed and the boys become crown wards on July [ ], 2009.

100The Children were removed from their parents care because the court found that the boys were in need of protection and that the parents could not adequately protect them. They are Crown Wards and the Society is charged with finding suitable homes to care for them. The Society must hold its foster homes and kinship homes to a standard that is higher than is the norm in the community.

101The Society entered into evidence the Service Agreement between the Applicant and the Society, signed and dated January [ ], 2011. The agreement details the requirements of the Act as well as the Society’s policies with respect to the care of the children. It required that Kinship Care parents provide for the basic care needs of the children, in particular the physical, social, emotional and educational needs.

102The Applicant has consistently been unable to meet the basic expectation of the Society to providing a stable, safe home for the boys. During the period of three years they have lived in three different homes in three different communities. The Society provided evidence of its provision of extra supports in the home to assist in the care of the Children but despite these efforts the placement broke down. The Society believed that the Applicant was committed to the Children and wanted to do the best for them however her home situation was completely unstable and coupled with the Children’s high needs she could not effectively parent them alone.

103The Children Service Worker stated that there was some progress and then periods of deterioration as the Applicant, though a committed caregiver was trying to “build a house on unstable ground”. The Society’s concerns were chronic and resulted in the decision to move the children on December [ ], 2011 which was carried out on December [ ], 2011.

104The Applicant was a well-meaning individual who agreed to care for all four boys without serious thought and consideration. All of the workers described the Applicant as committed, loving, attentive and open about the struggles of raising the boys. Although she faced obstacles she looked for options and was optimistic, friendly and bubbly. She was a single care giver to four difficult demanding young children but the boys seemed happy.

105The Applicant was a strong advocate for the children however follow through was difficult for her and firmness and boundaries were lacking. All of the care givers found the house “busy” and commented that it was difficult for one parent to manage four boys so close in age especially when the children started to develop behavioral issues.

106The Board heard evidence of several concerning examples of the Applicants failure to utilize resources. The Foster Care Services Supervisor reported that training was provided for foster/kin parents which included PRIDE, a nine week course. She had personally conducted Serious Occurrence Training with the Applicant who fell asleep during the presentation. When she woke the Applicant to find out if something was wrong with her, the Applicant responded that the children had kept her up the night before.

107The Former Kinship Worker testified that as the children developed, behavioral issues started to surface; however, they were also making gains and they seemed to be happy. She believed that the Applicant did not always think through the issues and could not see her limitations as a single parent to four demanding children.

108In February 2009, the Child Services Worker began working with the Applicant. He visited the home once per month to receive updates on the children’s health, education, family interaction, cognitive development, identify (cultural and religious), social presentation (dress, hygiene and communication) therapy, behavioral supports at home and at school, their independence and their life skills development. He was very involved and knowledgeable with regards to the four Children as he began working with [two of the boys] in 2007, [one of the boys] in 2008 and [the child] in 2009.

109[The worker] from [the agency] testified that she provided in home support to the applicant from November 2010, for a year. The service started when [one of the boys] had his tonsils removed and she worked in the home in the evenings for three or four hours twice per week. She kept the boys occupied while the Applicant cooked or ran errands. She provided respite for the Applicant as well as modeled parenting.

110She testified that [ ], the oldest child was the most sensitive and emotional. He had a speech impediment, he was toilet trained during the day but not at night. He also had an in home service to work on enhancing his speech.

111[One of the boys] was full of energy but he was displaying a “humping” behaviour for which both his school and his parent were trying to find consistent ways of redirecting the behaviour. [Another boy] was very affectionate, however his speech was very difficult to understand and he frequently had toileting accidents at home and at school.

112[The other boy] was bright, intelligent and exceeding the appropriate milestones. He could be aggressive and the worker had collected Antecedent Behaviour Consequence information because she suspected autism.

113[An assessment was] commenced on August [ ], 2010 for the four children as a result of a referral by the Children’s Service Worker. The Consultant met with the Applicant and the Former Kinship Service Worker on September [ ], 2010 to discuss the process, gather information and set dates for in home visits.

114The October [ ], 2010 visit in the Applicant’s [city b] home went smoothly. The Applicant was not at home for either the November [ ], or the November [ ] visits. The Consultant left a voice message on November [ ], requesting a call back to set up further appointments but the Applicant did not reply. The Consultant had left a camera and data collection sheets at the beginning of the assessment, however, no data was collected by the Applicant and the camera was returned unused.

115The Consultant wrote to the Children Service Worker on November [ ], 2010 apprising him of the situation. They agreed to restart the assessment after the Applicant moved to [city c] and on January [ ], 2011 the consultant attended a planning meeting with the Applicant. January [ ], [ ], [ ], and February [ ], 2011 were scheduled for the assessment.

116The Consultant stated that she attended the home on January [ ], 2011 and the Applicant came home ten minutes later and said that she had forgotten the appointment and the family was not available as the boys had to be taken to their biological family for an access visit.

117On January [ ], the Consultant returned for another appointment and no one answered the door for ten minutes. The Applicant’s mother eventually came to the door and said that the Applicant was on her way. She arrived forty five minutes late without the boys and said she would pick up the boys and be back in ten minutes. The Applicant then changed her mind and said that she would be back in one hour because they would be going to McDonalds on the way home. The Consultant declined to wait for their return.

118The Applicant in her testimony denied that this event occurred. However, the Consultant discussed the event with the Children Services Worker and confirmed in writing this incident as described in her testimony.

119Her testimony is that the Applicant cancelled the January [ ] visit without giving a reason and the January [ ] visit was cancelled because of court. She advised the Society on January [ ], 2011 that due to the “limited nature of our involvement to date and our inability to maintain consistent and ongoing contact it may not be beneficial to take advantage of our service options”. The Applicant was unable to meet the assessment requirements for logging data and recording video footage and had missed the majority of the appointments. The consultant recommended the closure of the file because a full behavioral assessment could not be completed without the data and in home visits. The Consultant testified that typically the assessment takes 2-3 months to be completed.

120The Applicant testified that she could not remember missing the Children’s appointments; however she was “busy”, and unable to do the recording for the assessment. She further stated that “we did not sit long enough for me to do this” and she did not know when the children would “act out” so that she could record them. She also stated that she did not see these missed appointments logged in her date planner.

121[The witness] testified that the house was very busy with eight or nine people and that the boys were active and the Applicant had a lot of work keeping up with them and the administrative requirements of the Society. His testimony was that the Applicant did the best she could with the Children and that she did not abuse them.

122The Child Service Worker described the boys as possessing highly refined negative attention seeking and control behaviours. They interrupted, pushed, fought, swore, talked excessively, and were defiant. [One of the boys] zoned out sometimes seeming not to listen and he and [one of the boys] were controlling of each other and their caregiver. [Another boy] had stiffness in his hand, twitching possibly from over stimulation and his outbursts were the most intense. [The Child] had the least behavioral issues at that time but all of the Boys were constantly competing for resources in any group.

123The clinical staff believed that [two of the boys] had self soothing behaviours and they also believed that the home needed increased safety and security to be achieved by implementing structure and reducing the “busyness”. A Treatment Foster Care Clinician and the Child Service Worker met with the Applicant to discuss [one of the boys’] behaviours and to explore strategies for home and school.

124[One of the boys] had lived with his biological mother from October 2007 to March 2008 during which time he had experienced significant neglect. A serious injury at birth coupled with the neglect resulted in the child spending a year at the Sick Kids hospital. He experienced significant delays because of this but after his placement in the home of [J.F.] he made remarkable gains due to her care and nurturing and he was very closely bonded with her.

125[Two of the boys] required speech therapy and [ ], Speech Therapist was retained by the Society. She testified that she provided weekly in home therapy sessions for [one of the boys] between February, 2011 and November 2011. A few appointments were missed because of timing issues. [One of the boys] has a difficult time focusing and working and needed a great deal of support. Progress did not meet expectation and the child did not maintain gains, however she reported that the Applicant was very supportive.

126[Another boy] was referred to Play Therapy by the Child Development Consultant due to his aggressive and emotional outbursts. [He] received only two sessions of the proposed four sessions for his assessment period in the playroom. After completion of the assessment, he was scheduled to receive six to eight weeks of play therapy followed by a review at the completion of the program. This was cancelled due to lack of participation.

127An infant and Child Development Play Therapy Assessment Report signed by [ D.C. ] dated June [ ], 2010 was placed into evidence by the Society stating that “Unfortunately due to a lack of attendance the Play Therapist had not felt able to assess [ the boys’] needs nor felt that he benefited from Play Therapy.”

128The report further states that due to a succession of “no shows” and “the foster mom having difficulties due to personal circumstances keeping scheduled dates and times” no further services have been provided.

129When the worker spoke to the Applicant regarding the missed services she reported that she had been unable to attend due to ongoing car issues. In her testimony to the Board the Applicant stated that the first appointment was not approved and the therapist resigned which resulted in the missed appointments. She was vague in her recollection of this substantial attempt by the Society to provide therapy to help [one of the boys] with his emotional development.

130The Children’s Service Worker testified that he reminded the Applicant of the children’s annual medical appointments and that in March of 2011 he arranged eye exams for all the boys because a follow up visit had been missed and [one of the boys] had missed his hearing test. The Society provided clinical support through a Treatment Foster Care Team but the Applicant was inconsistent with follow through resulting in missed appointments.

131Recognizing that the Applicant was having difficulty organizing her schedule, the Society assigned a volunteer “special friend” to the home to help the Applicant to fill out medical forms and complete other administrative tasks. She attended the home twice, once in [city b] and once in [city c] and because there was no communication from the Applicant the volunteer was assigned to another family.

132After the Children were removed from the Applicant’s foster home they were placed in close proximity to each other in three separate homes. [Two of the boys] were placed together in a [placement] so they could continue to be supported by their clinicians in that community. They were placed in a home with two parents and older children so they would not have young children to compete with and they would have two parents to care for them. After the initial transition and a significant deterioration in their behaviour both boys improved significantly.

133They are involved with [behaviour management, treatment foster care and speech therapy ]. Since re-involvement in speech therapy in January [one of the boys] is now able to hold on to gains much stronger between sessions. He is able to sit more and participate in the sessions. The new foster parents have completed the data sheets and the assessment requires two or three more home visits to be completed. The boys are following the rules, still challenging but [one of the boys] can play independently for one hour. The teacher reports that he is struggling with academics.

134[One of the boys] has no challenging behaviours; he plays appropriately and is very social. He has no academic challenges. Relations between the brothers have improved although [one boy] still likes to be in control, he allows [the other boy] to choose his own play.

135[Another of the boys] was placed with his previous foster parents with whom he has a strong bond. He has some concerning behaviours for which resources are being sought. He is behind on cognitive development however a consultation with [a resource] has provided strategies to address his negative behaviours and his stiffening behaviours have also decreased.

136[The child] was very close to the Applicant and the separation has been the most difficult and confusing for him. He has become attached to the new foster father and a four year old foster child in the home. [The child] is displaying concerning behaviours, aggression, tantrums and soiling. He too was referred to [the resource] and he was scheduled to be assessed on April [ ], 2012.

137The Board finds that the Children’s well being with regards to their special needs was compromised by the Applicant’s inability to take advantage of the multiple services which the Society offered to assess the Children’s needs and to provide intensive services for them. Due to missed appointments the Children did not receive the benefit of early assessment, intervention and therapy. The Board acknowledges that it would be a difficult task to organize the busy schedule of four boys with special needs. However, the Applicant did not utilize the personnel assigned to her by the Society to assist her in organizing and caring for the Children. This affected the children’s development negatively.

138The Applicant was unable to organize her life to properly access the many services which the Society put in place to meet the Children’s developmental needs. The Board finds that it is not in a child’s interest to be placed in a home where the caregiver is unable to take full advantage of the services available to assist in their development, particularly a child whose special needs may only become evident with time. The Children have made progress and been linked with appropriate resources since leaving the Applicant’s care. This demonstrates that their various needs can be met with proper attention to their needs. Although [the child] has had some difficulties since leaving the Applicant’s care, he has been provided with access to resources by the Society and current caregiver.

139It is not in [the child’s] best interest to be placed in a home where the needs of the children were not consistently met and where the Society’s plans and important therapeutic appointments were routinely missed and ignored.

The Children’s concerning behaviours; The Society’s Plan

140The children exhibited concerning behaviours that were not adequately addressed by the Applicant, contrary to the best interests of the children. The Applicant’s failure to address these behaviours means that as a future caregiver for [the child], she would not likely be sufficiently responsive to his needs.

141The Applicant testified that something was wrong with [one of the boys] as sometimes he did not “respond”. She also confirmed that she knew about [the children] “Humping” behaviours (described below). However, there was no evidence that the Applicant addressed these concerns. In contrast, the Society’s plan is actively addressing these concerns and the concerns described in the preceding section of this decision, as set out above.

142[One of the boys] disclosed to the Serious Occurrence Investigation team that he did not want to go back to live with the Applicant and the emotional arrivals and departures of access visits led to the Applicant’s visits being changed from her home to the Society’s office. The four boys were placed in close proximity to each other and to their biological family so that the Applicant, the biological parents and [the witness] are able to have supervised visits at the Society’s office.

143[ ], Serious Occurrence Worker, reported that a referral was made on April [ ], 2012 with regards to sexualized behaviours being exhibited by three of the four Children. As a result, a second Serious Occurrence Investigation was launched by the Society which he conducted. Initially [the children] were found in their bedroom engaging in “humping” and then [the child] was found by his foster mother placing his penis in his sleeping foster brother’s hand on April [ ], 2012.

144All of the boys, the other children in the home and the foster parents were interviewed by two or three workers. [The child’s] family reported many instances of his inappropriate sexualized behaviours including his foster brother’s complaint that [the child] was touching his “willie” during their bath. The foster mother reported that [the child] asked her two year old granddaughter to show him her vagina in February 2012. [The child] admitted that he had learned to touch himself from his brother [ ] and that he had touched his foster brother with his privates.

145The Serious Occurrence worker testified that [one of the boys] foster mother reported that he often plays with his penis. When he interviewed [this boy] he said “[The boys] made me bad” but did not elaborate on his comment. [This boy] said that there is a reason why he said that but he did not want to talk about it right now. Further, [he] said that his uncle slept with him on three occasions and his mom too.

146The worker testified that [the first boy placed with his brother] was observed by his foster mother on April 9, 2012 with his tongue out and he looked like he was going to lick [the second boy’s] penis. When she asked why he was doing this he replied “because I want to”. [The second boy] also asked her “why [the first boy] always makes him hump his bum at [X’s]”. The foster mother told the children that this behaviour was inappropriate and [the first boy] replied that no, it was not because “he always touches his penis when he wants to” and [their other brother] also engaged in this behaviour.

147The foster mother used a baby monitor to monitor the [two] boys in their room because she was very concerned about their behaviours. She confirmed that the humping behaviours were ongoing and that it was used by [one boy] to control [the other boy]. [One boy] had poked [the other boy] with a toy drill in the groin and told her Uncle [ ] yells at Auntie and makes her cry.

148[The other boy] reported that [the boy] was not allowed to be in his room because “he tried to lick my private”. He also reported that he learned to “hump” from [him].

149As a result of the investigation a decision was made to separate all of the Children and it was also deemed inappropriate for them to share bedrooms with any other child. Therapy and counselling for the boys to explore these issues were recommended as the Society deemed that some of these behaviours were outside the realm of normal age appropriate sibling behaviours.

150[The witness] testified that he had changed his mind about attending the hearing because he heard from his sister that there was an investigation regarding sexual harassment of the children and he felt very strongly about the topic as he had spoken to [the service worker] about the “humping” behaviour which he believed was not normal for a small child.

151The Board finds that the Society acted in the best interest of the four Children by placing them in foster homes. The foster parents were alert to the Children’s sexualized behaviours and in partnership with the Society are actively working to remedy the situation. The Board also finds that necessary assessments are in progress and therapeutic treatments have commenced for the Children on a timely basis. The Society’s plan is responsive to the children’s concerning behaviours, contrary to Applicant’s lack of response. It is not in the [the child’s] best interests to be in a home that does not address the types of behaviours exhibited.

152Further, in light of the behaviours, the Society’s plan appropriately places the children near but not with each other to keep them safe but to facilitate contact. This is an appropriate response to the importance of the sibling bond. However, it does not inform the Board’s decision about the Applicant either way because her current plan is to care only for [the child].

The Applicant’s Relationship with and Plan to Care for [ ]; Continuity of Care and the impact of disruption.

153The importance of [the child] having a stable home with one caregiver who is part of his extended family and the impact that the disruption in that care may have on him, was also considered by the Board.

154The Applicant is particularly close to [the child] and would like him to be returned to her care. The Applicant explained that she believes now that the three oldest Children are settled in school and new homes they cannot be returned to her care; therefore, only [the child’s] return would be appropriate at this time. She entered into evidence Durham Children’s Aid Society Supervised Access Observation Reports to underscore how much [the child] misses her and his home. The supervision notes indicate that the Applicant and [the child] are affectionate with each other. This is not unexpected given that the Applicant has been caring for [the child] since birth and is his psychological mother. The Board in reviewing the notes is concerned about the instances during the visits when the Applicant cries when speaking to [the child]. The note states that the Applicant tells [the child] that “he should be able to go home soon but it will just be him” and that “only he can come home because it was too “busy” with all of them”.

155This is particularly emotionally harmful to him for several reasons. The determination of where [the child] was to be placed was still outstanding. To tell him that he was going home creates an anticipation, which unfortunately will lead to disappointment. Further to tell him that he is the only one who can come home could cause anxiety and stress for the Child as he tries to understand the reason.

156The Applicant’s current plan would be to move to [city d] if [the child] did not have to see his family with her mom and [son].

157The Child’s family has a history of special needs which has to be taken into consideration because his siblings began to exhibit developmental issues as they got older. The Applicant did not address possible future medical or therapeutic requirements for the Child. Also she did not present a plan to satisfy [the child’s] physical, mental and emotional needs for consideration.

158The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a caregiver who is part of his extended family and continuity of care are not lost on the Board. However, the Applicant’s history of poor judgment, instability, poor financial management and dishonesty with the Society as well as her history of inappropriate care for the developmental needs of the four boys while in her care leaves the Board to conclude that this placement would not be in [the child’s] best interest despite his obvious bond with the Applicant who has parented him since birth. In this case, the Applicant’s inability to meet the Child’s needs overrides the consideration of continuity of care, the Child’s bond with the Applicant and the impact of the disruption of the relationship on the child. The Child, [ ] must be placed in a stable foster home where his needs can be met.

The level of trust between the Applicant and the Society

159The Board finds that for a foster placement to be safe and successful in meeting the needs of the Child, there must be honesty on the part of the foster parent, whom the Society must trust. That was not the case for the Applicant and the Board has no basis upon which to conclude that things would change if [the child] is returned to the Applicant’s care.

160The Board has already described significant breaches of trust by the Applicant who withheld significant medical and financial information and deceived the Society about her relationship with [the witness].

161There are further examples of breach of trust. The Applicant’s foster parent agreement with the society requires that regular visitors to the home should be identified to the Kinship Care Worker and anyone over the age of eighteen years old provide “a police check with a vulnerable sector check”. The agreement requires that parents keep the Society informed of all significant events in the child’s life i.e. school, health and the law.

162The Applicant admitted to the Society that her son [ ] had been charged for drinking and driving and that he did use marijuana, however, she stated that he did not live in the home. [The witness] testified to seeing “weed” once in the basement where the Applicant’s sons lived. He believed a friend brought it into the home.

163The Applicant did not inform the Society of police attendance at her home until a year after the event. The [city b] landlord testified that the police visited the home three times asking for the Applicant after she moved to Oshawa. The Applicant testified that she did not know of any reasons why the police would visit her home after she left.

164The Board found that the Applicant breached the Society’s trust on so many significant issues that she is unable to be a foster parent caregiver for [the child].

Decision

165The Board has determined that it is not in the Children’s best interests to be placed in the Applicant’s care. As such, the Board has decided that [the child] cannot be returned to the Applicant’s care and confirms the Society’s decision to remove [the child] and his siblings [the children] from her foster care.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

166] 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 on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.

Denyse Diaz

_____________________

Denyse Diaz

Presiding Member

Lorna King

________________________

Lorna King

Board Member

John F. Spekkens

________________________

John F. Spekkens

Board Member