C.L. v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, 2013 CFSRB 15

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

C.L. v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: March 19, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 15

Indexed as: C.L. v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1C.L. (the “Applicant”) filed an application on April 30, 2012 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”). She was complaining about the Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (the “Society”) pursuant to 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”).

2The issues raised in this application and heard at the hearing are:

The Society has not heard the Applicant’s service concerns or heard her when decisions were made and has not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests, regarding the following (in the past two years):

1. The Society’s use of the phrase “when the time is appropriate” when referring to her son J. (the “Child”) being returned to the Applicant’s care.

2. The question as to what issues in the last two years have prevented the Applicant from having the Child in her care.

3. The Child’s placement in [County].

3The Board conducted a Hearing on September 11, 2012 and dismisses the application.

Background

4The Applicant is the mother of 12 year old son, [ ] (the “Child”) and [another boy] who is 9 years old. Both children are Crown wards with access since 2007. The issues presented at this hearing are with regard to the child, [ ].

5The Applicant has resided with [ ] (the Partner) for approximately 2 years.

6The Child was found in need of protection and brought into the care of the Society on two occasions, February [ ], 2001 and October [ ], 2005. The Child has resided in two separate foster homes but has remained in his current foster placement since April [ ], 2009.

7The Applicant has had a progression of increased access opportunities to the Child since his apprehension. In 2009, the Applicant was unsuccessful in having the Child returned to her care through a Status Review Application. Increased access, however, was implemented.

8In May 2010, the Society wrote a letter to the Applicant’s counsel indicating that although the Applicant’s access was increasing there was no plan to reintegrate the Child with the Applicant.

9In March 2011, the Society indicated to the Applicant that the foster family with whom the Child resides was relocating to [County] and the Child would be moving with them. The Applicant expressed her disagreement with that move. At that meeting, the Society provided the Applicant and her Partner with information on how to dispute this decision through the Status Review process. The Applicant followed that advice, contacted legal counsel and proceeded with the Status Review Application in April 2011, seeking to have the Child returned to her care.

10In July 2011, the foster family and the Child moved to [County] and the Applicant did not take the necessary steps to delay this move pending the outcome of the Status Review Application.

11The Child was represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer for the Status Review proceeding. The Child’s lawyer took the position that, although [the child] enjoyed his visits with his mother, he was well established with the foster family and should not be returned to his mother’s care. The Status Review Application was then resolved by way of consent in December 2011, with the Child remaining in the care of his foster parents and access to his mother increasing to include overnight visits.

Analysis

12The main issues for the Board are whether the Society heard the Applicant as required when decisions were made or when she raised service concerns, and whether the Society provided her with explanations relating to the decisions made. The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

Matters for Board Review

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

(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.

Duties of Service Providers

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;

13The reasons for the Board’s decision on the three issues are set out below.

Issue 1: The phrase “when the time is appropriate”

14The Applicant and her Partner both gave evidence that at the March [ ], 2011 meeting in the family home, [ ], the Child Care Worker (CCW) stated that it was not the appropriate time to discuss the Child returning to the care of the Applicant. The Partner testified that when he asked the CCW what was the appropriate time to consider the return of the Child, there was never any timeline offered or specifics about what the Applicant needed to do to have the Child returned to her. The Applicant gave evidence that the CCW had stated that they would work on moving the Child home at the appropriate time but did not say when that would be.

15The CCW testified that she did not recall using the phrase “when the time is appropriate” nor was the phrase recorded in her notes.

16In reference to “it not being the appropriate time” to discuss the return of the Child to the Applicant, the Partner gave evidence that the CCW indicated that she was not the one to make that decision about the return of the child to the home because she only works with the children and that they needed to speak to a Family Service Worker (FSW). When the Board asked the Applicant if she had ever been offered a FSW, she testified that there was no FSW assigned because her children were crown wards.

17The CCW testified that she didn’t recall making the statement about a FSW and that she didn’t recall the Applicant requesting a FSW. She further explained that a FSW would not be assigned when the Child is a crown ward.

18The Board dismisses the complaint with regard to the failure of the Society to respond to the Applicant’s service concerns by explaining to her what was meant by the phrase “when the time is appropriate”. The Board finds that on a balance of probabilities the CCW said words to the effect that it was not the appropriate time to discuss a return of the Child but did not say, as the Applicant testified, that the Society would work on moving the child back home when the time is appropriate. The language which the Board accepts is consistent with the Society’s position since the Child came into care and became a crown ward. The Society provided documented evidence that as soon as May 2010, they had provided a letter to the Applicant that clearly stated that the Society was not planning to reintegrate the child back into her care. Furthermore, the evidence is that at the meeting of March 2011 when the Applicant disagreed with the move of the Child with the foster family in [County], the Society’s response was not to entertain a possible return of the Child into the Applicant’s care but instead to inform her that she could initiate a status review application.

19The Board dismisses this complaint.

Issue 2: What issues were preventing the return of the Child to the Applicant’s care in the past two years.

20The Society, in this instance, met its obligations pursuant to subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

21The Applicant had an extensive history with the Society, beginning in December 2000. The child prior to becoming a Crown Ward on July [ ], 2007 was returned to the Applicant’s care on several occasions. In 2009 the Applicant sought the return of the child and brought a Status Review application. The Applicant’s testimony is that she was represented by counsel; however, she could not recall the contents of any documents filed by the Society. A final Order was obtained on May [ ], 2010, whereby only the access provisions of the Crown Ward Order were varied to increase the Applicant’s access.

22The Applicant however continued to believe that the child would be returned to her care. The Society in a letter to the Applicant’s counsel dated May [ ], 2010, less than three weeks after the Order was made, noted that the Applicant was “pressing the worker for information on when her overnight visits would commence”. The Society at that point was suggesting that counsel stress to the Applicant the fact that it was a final order, not a reintegration process. The Society also expressed the concern that the Applicant did not understand the Society’s position.

23The Applicant brought another Status Review Application in 2011 with the assistance of counsel again seeking the return of the child. At that time, the testimony of both the Applicant and her partner confirms that they were under the impression that [the child] could be returned to their care. The Applicant’s evidence showed that she had taken numerous courses related to parenting, had overcome her addictions through required interventions and programming and had received the therapeutic support. The Applicant testified that it was her belief that completing these programs would be sufficient to have her Child returned to her care. The evidence is that this belief was not encouraged by the Society.

24Both the Applicant and the Partner testified that they were under the impression that the progressive and increasing access with the Child, as agreed upon by the parties and incorporated into Court Orders, led them to believe that the Child was going to be returned to their care. The Partner testified that this gave them a false sense of hope. The Applicant and the Partner both testified that their legal counsel was optimistic and encouraging about the return of the Child to their care.

25Both the Applicant and her partner also testified that after she retained counsel and brought this second Status Review Application she requested that communications occur mainly through counsel. The Society’s evidence is that it had limited contact with the Applicant during these court proceedings. The Society again did not support the return of the child to her care at this Status Review Application, which was stated in Court documents. The parties on December [ ], 2011 agreed to a final order that again only varied the access provisions of the Crown Wardship Order.

26The Board believes that it is important that the Society clearly communicate to a parent, where the child is already a Crown Ward, the criteria used in deciding whether to support the return of their child to their care. In this case the Board believes that several factors contributed to the Applicant’s complaint. Firstly, the Applicant remained hopeful in spite of evidence to the contrary, the letter of May [ ], 2010, the Society not supporting the child’s return to her care and two access only variations on the Crown Wardship Order. The Applicant in her testimony continued to maintain that she was misled by the Society, when she was in fact, “disappointed” with the outcome of her Status Review Applications. The Society was very clear that it would not support the return of the child to the Applicant’s care. If so, it would have supported her Status Review Application, or suggested a re-integration plan. The Applicant saw the Society’s willingness to increase access, as a reintegration plan, when it was never so.

27Also, in requesting limited direct contact with the Society, the Applicant restricted the Society’s ability to communicate with her. As such the Society’s requirements of her, if any, would have been communicated through the Applicant’s counsel and the Applicant has little recollection of those communications.

28The Board finds that there was nothing else the Society could have done to let the Applicant know that the Society was not supporting the return of the child to her care. For this reason, the Board dismisses this complaint.

Issue 3: The Child’s relocation

29The Applicant and the Partner testified that in the meeting on March [ ], 2011, they were informed by the CCW that the Child would be relocated to [the County] . They each testified that they felt this was an opportunity for them to advocate with the Society to have the Child returned to their home as opposed to disrupting him with a move from his home community.

30The Partner testified that the Society indicated they wanted the Child to remain in his current foster family and due to this move to [the County] that the Society would probably increase access to the Applicant.

31The Applicant testified that in the March [ ], 2011 meeting with the Society, the CCW indicated that the foster family was moving to [City] and the Child didn’t want to be moved to another foster home because he had been with the current foster family for 2 years.

32The CCW testified that she had indicated to the Applicant in that meeting, that the foster family was relocating to [City] due to the foster father’s employment. The CCW also testified that she wanted the Child to relocate with the foster family because it had been a stable placement.

33The Board dismisses this complaint. The Board finds that the Society had heard the Applicants concerns and adequately explained the reasons why the Society decided that the foster parents could move with the Child to [the County].

DECISION

34The Applicant’s complaint is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

35Parties 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.