Y.R. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2012 CFSRB 57

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

Y.R.

v.

CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: December 21, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 57

Indexed as: Y.R. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On October 10, 2012, Y.R. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.C.11, as amended (the “Act”). The Board found the application eligible for review under section 68.1(4) subsections 4 and 5 on October 19, 2012. A pre-hearing conference was held on November 5, 2012 and the hearing was conducted on November 27, 2012.

2The Applicant’s complaint related to three issues:

1. how the Society treated her with respect to her mental health issues;
2. the Society’s community care giver investigation and its impact on her and her family including the loss of her driver’s license and her job as a school bus driver; and,
3. her concerns about unemployment.

3The Board dismisses the Applicant’s application for the following reasons.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant is the mother of [ ] (the “Daughter) who was 13 years old when the Society became involved with the family.

5The Society received an anonymous call from the Daughter’s school on November [ ], 2011 raising concerns about the Applicant’s behaviour during a recent school meeting that took place at the school. The meeting had been set in order to discuss concerns that the school had regarding the Daughter. The caller had been present at the meeting and described the Applicant’s concerning behaviour during the meeting. The Daughter was present at the meeting and shared information including that the Applicant had a mental health problem and had medication prescribed but was not taking it. The Daughter further alleged that her parents fought a lot but only verbally. The caller also identified that the family had a number of strengths as well.

6The Society opened a file as a result of the anonymous call and undertook an investigation into the concerns expressed by the caller. As a result of its investigation into these concerns, the Society opened the file to ongoing service on November [ ], 2011. During the course of its first investigation, the Society initiated a second investigation as the result of learning that the Applicant was a bus driver responsible for transporting vulnerable children. This investigation commenced in late May 2012. As a result of this investigation, and based on the advice of the Applicant’s psychiatrist, the Applicant had her license suspended by the Ministry of Transportation in July 2012. The file was closed on September [ ], 2012.

ANALYSIS

7The Board must determine whether the Society heard the Applicant when she raised concerns about the services received and when decisions were made and whether the Society gave her reasons for decisions it made that affected her interest.

8This application was made under section 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act which state:

68.1 If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section; or

(b) where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 68, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed.

Matters for Board review

(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68 (1) as required under subsection 68 (2).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2 (2) (a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

Section 2(2) (a) of the Act referred to in s. 68.1 (4) states:

2 (2) Service providers shall ensure,

(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

9In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara. 2012 CFSRB 33 at paras.13-14 the Board described the purpose of s.68.1(4) and (5) as follows:

The obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly

10The Applicant’s complaint related to three issues and how the Society treated her with respect to them: her mental health, the investigation into driving a bus and the Applicant’s concerns about the Society’s involvement and its impact on her and her family including the loss of her driver’s license, the loss of her job as a school bus driver and her inability to find a job.

11The Applicant explained that the experience of having the Society in her life was both humiliating and shaming since she considered herself to be a good person, a good mother and a good wife. She described herself as a person with a deep faith who relies upon her faith for strength and guidance. The Board recognizes that this experience was painful for the Applicant. However, the Board’s role is to determine whether the Society met its obligations under the Act to hear her concerns about services and decisions and to provide her with reasons for its decisions.

12[ ], the Society’s Intake Worker received a call from an anonymous caller from the Applicant’s Daughter’s school on November [ ], 2011. She phoned the Applicant and made an appointment to meet with the Applicant in her home on the same day. While at the home, [the Intake Worker] explained why she was there and what her role was. She told the Applicant that she needed to interview her, her husband and the children as part of her investigation.

13During this meeting, the Applicant talked about people wanting to harm her and her family and mistresses who were coming to her home when she was not there. She also talked about her concerns regarding a couple of jobs she had lost as the result of interference from the mistresses and wanting to have cameras installed in her home to observe them. The Applicant informed [the Intake Worker] that her Daughter was aware of the mistresses. The Applicant also mentioned to [the Intake Worker] that she had stopped seeing her psychiatrist. In general, [the Intake Worker] believed that it was possible that the Applicant did not understand her role given the Applicant’s apparent state of mind. [The Intake Worker] stated that at this meeting, she did not have a discussion about the Applicant’s mental health.

14Interviews with the Applicant’s Daughter and her husband indicated that the family was concerned about the Applicant’s behaviour and her need for treatment. The Society had particular concerns about how this was impacting on the Applicant’s Daughter who expressed the wish that her mother get some help and described life at home as difficult to the point that she wanted to live with a maternal aunt.

15[The Intake Worker] and a co-worker met with the Applicant on November [ ], 2011 and discussed with her and her husband how the Applicant’s behaviour and need for treatment was impacting on the family and especially her Daughter. Upon hearing this, the Applicant started screaming, knelt in front of the Society workers pounding on her chest. The Applicant ultimately calmed down and agreed to see a psychiatrist on the following day.

16The Applicant’s file was transferred from intake to ongoing service on November [ ], 2011 because of the Applicant’s behaviour at the meeting and the concerns the Society had about the Applicant’s Daughter. [The Intake Worker] and a Family Service Worker [ ] met with the Applicant on December [ ], 2011 for the purpose of the transfer and to introduce the new, ongoing worker to the Applicant. The reasons for the transfer were explained to the Applicant at that meeting including the Society’s concerns about the Applicant’s mental health. The Applicant was provided with a brochure that outlined the role of the Society and procedures related to making a complaint.

17The Daughter was present at the meeting on December [ ], 2011 and asked to speak privately with the workers. She told them that she was having a hard time, was having problems with friends at school and stated that “things would be better if I wasn’t around and no one would miss me if I wasn’t”. The Applicant’s husband had returned during this discussion. The workers spoke to both parents and advised them that they believed the Daughter needed to be taken to hospital.

18The workers, the parents and the Daughter went to the hospital. The Daughter was assessed and returned home that night. However based on observations by hospital staff and an assessment at that time, the Applicant was admitted involuntarily to hospital on the same day and remained in hospital for several weeks.

19When [the Family Service Worker] became aware that the Applicant had concerns about the impact that being in hospital and not working would have on the family’s financial situation she made inquiries about sources of financial assistance which she communicated to the Applicant’s husband. [The Family Service Worker] also met with the Applicant on February [ ], 2012 to discuss her financial situation, provide her with written information on possible benefits and reviewed this information with her. The Applicant did not take any further steps to explore benefits for which she might be eligible.

20[The Family Service Worker] met with the Applicant again on March [ ], 2012 and was concerned about how she presented and learned at the meeting that the Applicant was seeking a job as a bus driver. [The Family Service Worker] had the Applicant’s consent to communicate with her psychiatrist, [ ], and she felt obligated to share information with him about both the Applicant’s condition and her plans to drive a bus. [The Psychiatrist] planned to see the Applicant and assess the Society’s concern about her driving.

21On May [ ], 2012, the Applicant left a voicemail message for [the Family Service Worker] and said that [the Psychiatrist] did not wish to see her anymore and had asked the Applicant to obtain a letter from the Society stating that the Society wanted [the Psychiatrist] to see her. [The Family Service Worker] spoke with [the Psychiatrist] on May [ ], 2012 regarding the voicemail message from the Applicant and [the Psychiatrist] denied that he had given such a direction to the Applicant.

22On May [ ], 2012, [ ], a Society supervisor, spoke with the Applicant who told her that [the Psychiatrist] did not have any concerns about her mental health and did not understand why the Society was involved. [The Society Supervisor] attempted to explain to the Applicant the reasons for the Society’s continued involvement. [The Society Supervisor] suggested that the Applicant contact [the Psychiatrist] and explained that she recognized it was the Applicant’s decision to seek treatment. [The Society Supervisor] stated that nothing she said was effective in getting the attention of the Applicant to focus on the issues of concern.

23In the course of that conversation, the Applicant mentioned that she was driving a bus and her passengers were children with disabilities. At the end of her conversation with the Applicant, [the Society Supervisor] left a message for [the Family Service Worker] to create a community caregiver concern referral regarding the Applicant driving vulnerable children. She also shared her concern about the Applicant’s mental health and the need to ensure that the Applicant was not in a sole caregiver role with her own children.

24A family centred conference was held on June [ ], 2012 in order to discuss supports for the Applicant’s Daughter and financial concerns expressed by the Applicant. The Applicant, her husband, her sister and her two children were present during the meeting. The focus of the meeting was the Daughter and developing a safety plan for her which entailed support from the maternal aunt during times when the Daughter felt the need to be away from her own home. At that time, the family was informed that the Society was considering closing the file since the Daughter was not expressing any further suicidal ideation and supports had been put into place and/or were being planned. In addition, the family was provided with food vouchers in recognition of their financial hardship

25Following the assessment by [the Psychiatrist] the Ministry of Transportation suspended the Applicant’s driver’s license in July 2012. The Society closed the file on September [ ], 2012 based on the progress the Daughter had made and the supports that were in place for the Daughter including the presence of the Applicant’s husband in the home.

Conclusions

26Based on the preceding analysis, the Board finds that the Society met its obligations to hear the Applicant and to provide her with reasons for its decisions at each step along the way of its involvement with her. [The Intake Worker], [the Family Service Worker] and [the Society Supervisor] all explained why the Society had concerns about her mental health. These concerns arose based on a call from the school, the interviews with the Applicant’s Daughter and her husband, and the concerns of [the Psychiatrist]. The Society workers explained the reasons for these concerns to the Applicant when they met with her and provided her with information about its role and procedures, including information about the Society’s complaint procedures. The Board accepts the evidence of [the Intake Worker], [the Family Service Worker] and [the Society Supervisor]. The Applicant did not dispute any of the evidence presented by Society witnesses regarding its attempts to provide her with reasons and to hear her concerns.

27The Society had a responsibility in light of its concerns about the Applicant’s mental health, to be concerned about the Applicant driving vulnerable children and possibly placing them at risk. The Society does not have the legal authority to suspend someone’s driver’s license and was not responsible for suspending the Applicant’s driver’s license. Her license was suspended as a result of an assessment by [the Psychiatrist] and his conclusions regarding her capacity at the time and his advice to the Ministry of Transportation.

28Finally, the Board believes that the Society heard the Applicant’s concerns about the financial impact of not working. [The Family Service Worker] sought out information the first time that the Applicant expressed these concerns in January 2012. In addition, she provided the Applicant with information about benefit options; encouragement to consider benefit options and the Society provided financial support in the form of food vouchers.

29The Board dismisses the Application for the reasons given above.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

30Parties 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.

ANDREA HIMEL

___________________________

Andrea Himel

Presiding Member

GAIL GONDA

___________________________

Gail Gonda

Panel Member

MARY WONG

___________________________

Mary Wong

Panel Member