E.F. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2013 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

E.F.

v.

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: March 22, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 17

Indexed as: E.F. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant is the maternal grandmother of the child, G., who was placed in the paternal grandparents’ care by the mother in July 2011. The Applicant made repeated requests to the Society from July 2011 to have the child placed in her care, or in the mother’s care with her support. In October 2012, the child was placed in her care with the consent of the paternal grandparents.

2The Applicant filed this Application on December 14, 2012, pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended (the “Act”).

3The Applicant alleges that the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (the “Society”) failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about her service concerns or give her reasons for its decisions affecting her interests in respect of her request that the child be removed from the care of paternal grandparents and placed with her, as well as concerns about the family services worker.

4For the reasons that follow the Application is allowed in part.

BACKGROUND

5The Society opened a file with the mother and father in September 2010. After the mother placed the child with the paternal grandparents and father, the file was transferred to [ ] (the “other Society”). During the fall of 2011, the relationship between the Applicant (and the mother) and the paternal grandparents (and the father) deteriorated. The Applicant and the mother had no access to the child, and the mother commenced a domestic Court Application seeking custody.

6The Society’s file was re-opened in October 2011 when the mother advised that she wanted to plan for the child. On December [ ], 2011, the Supervisor and the worker from the other Society met with the Applicant and the mother to discuss service concerns respecting another worker, concerns about the paternal grandparents and the Applicant’s request to have the child placed in her care.

7In January 2012, the Family Services Worker (“FSW”) was assigned to work with the mother. The mother and the Applicant had access to the child at the Applicant’s home. The FSW had considerable contact with the Applicant when she was supervising access to the child and during telephone calls. In addition, the Applicant attended two meetings with the FSW, the Supervisors and others that were held at the Society in March and May 2012. By May 2012 the Applicant (and the mother’s) relationship with the Society, and in particular the FSW, deteriorated.

8On several occasions the Applicant raised child protection concerns with the FSW about the care the child received at the home of the paternal grandparents. She was not satisfied with the FSW’s responses that her concerns had been investigated by the other society (and once by the FSW) and were not verified. During these communications the Applicant also alleged that the FSW had provided contradictory information about what she and the mother needed to do to have the child placed in their care, and requested that the child be placed in her care or in the care of the mother with her support.

9In October 2012, the paternal grandparents requested that the Applicant assume responsibility for care of the child. The Society subsequently worked with both families to resolve the access issues. Final Minutes of Settlement were executed, the Applicant was added as party to the domestic Court proceedings, and she obtained a final order for custody of the child on February [ ], 2013.

JURISDICTION

10Both parties provided evidence at the hearing to address subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act. Upon review of the evidence and the legislation the Board concludes that it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with any issue arising under s. 68.1(4) 4 of the Act. The relevant sections of the Act are as follows.

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

Definitions

3(2) “parent” In this Act, a reference to a child’s parent shall be deemed to be a reference to, (...)

(c) another individual, where that individual has lawful custody of the child, except where the Act provides otherwise.

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).

11The concerns raised in the Application relate to communications that took place before the Applicant obtained custody of the child pursuant to the final order dated February [ ], 2013 (and, for the most part, relate to the period of time pre-dating the child moving to the Applicant’s home in October 2012).

12Since the Applicant was not a parent (as defined by the Act) during the relevant timeframe, the Board has no jurisdiction to respond to allegations that her services concerns were not heard by the Society.

ANALYSIS

13The Board does, however, have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint made pursuant to s. 68 1 (4) 5. The issue for the Board is whether the Society provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to continue its support for the child’s placement with the paternal grandparents and not to proceed with the Applicant’s request for assistance to have the child placed in her care. The relevant timeframe is from the time of re-opening of the file in December 2011 up to October 2012. During that time the Board finds that the Applicant sought kinship services.

14The 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:

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

15With respect to this section of the Act, what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A complainant must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made. See, for example, H.L.B v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s.68), 2012 CFSRB 4.

16Based on the evidence before it, the Board finds that due to inconsistent messages provided to the Applicant, the Society did not provide the Applicant with sufficiently detailed, consistent and timely reasons for its decision not to proceed with the Applicant’s kinship application from December 2011 to May 2012. The Board finds that as of May 2012 the Society did provide the Applicant with sufficiently detailed, consistent and timely reasons for its decision. Therefore, the Application is allowed in part.

17The Supervisor testified that at the December [ ], 2011 meeting various concerns raised by the mother and the Applicant were addressed. They also discussed that time was running out to make a long term plan for the young child and that the mother had to address specific issues. The Supervisor clarified that the Society was focussed on working with the mother, as she was their primary client.

18The Supervisor also explained that the child had been in her current placement since July 2011, and there were no child protection concerns relating to that placement. The child was safe and stable, and she needed ongoing stability in her life. In response to the Applicant’s request that the child be moved to her home, the Supervisor testified that she explained that the Society would not move the child. The Board finds that the message provided to the Applicant at that time was clear and timely.

19The Board finds, however, that the FSW conveyed a different message to the Applicant when they met at the Applicant’s home for the first time in January 2012. The FSW testified that the Applicant informed her that she wanted the child in her care, and that she was concerned that the child’s current placement was inadequate.

20The FSW responded that the Society would consider the Applicant’s kinship application and that the first step was to submit police clearance. The FSW acknowledged that the Applicant submitted her police clearance shortly after the meeting. However, the Society then took no steps to conduct a kinship assessment or to contact the kinship assessment committee to inquire as to whether a kinship assessment should be completed.

21The Applicant testified that she understood from her meeting with the FSW that the child would be placed in her care if she secured larger accommodations. The Applicant was subsequently advised by an access Supervisor that this statement was not correct. The child could not be moved unless the paternal grandparents gave up custody. When this was raised with the FSW at a meeting in March 2012, after the Applicant committed to a larger and more expensive rental home, the worker denied making that statement. The Board makes no findings as to the contents of the January 2012 discussion. However, the Board finds that the Applicant relied upon her understanding (or misunderstanding) and that is what motivated her to rent a larger home.

22The difficulty with the inconsistency of the messages about whether or not the Society was prepared to do a kinship assessment, which is usually a precursor to the placement of a child, is that it led to the Applicant not understanding the Society’s actions or inaction, or the reasons for same. The Supervisor testified that she is not sure why the Applicant was told to make a kinship application after the December 2011 meeting, since the Society generally does not look at a second set of kin after a child’s current placement is stable.

23The Supervisor also testified that the Society manages the expectations of family members delicately when there are competing plans of care from other family members who want to be involved. It will assess safety and well-being and does not like to choose between kin caregivers. For that reason, the Society took no steps to facilitate or support the child’s move from the paternal grandparents’ home to the Applicant’s home.

24The Society would not and did not go to the first step in the kin process, being a request to the kinship review committee, until it concluded in May 2012 that the mother had not addressed the concerns and, therefore, the child needed a permanent home. The inconsistent messages sent to the Applicant were confusing and caused her distress. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing the Board finds that the Applicant was not provided clear and consistent reasons from January to May 2012.

25When the matter was finally put before the Kinship Review Committee in May 2012, the request was denied on the basis that the child was safe, attached and thriving in the paternal grandparents’ care. The Society advised the Applicant, in writing, that it would not move the child from a placement where she had been thriving for ten months. The Board finds that from May 14, 2012 onwards the Society did provide consistent reasons for the decision not to facilitate or support the child’s move from the paternal grandparents’ home to the Applicant’s home.

CONCLUSION

26The Board finds that for the period from December 2011 to May 2012, the Society was in breach of section 68.1(4) 5 of the Act, due to the inconsistent messages conveyed by the Society. The Board finds that from May 14, 2012 onwards the Society complied with the Act when it issued a letter to the Applicant explaining why they would not proceed with a kinship assessment or consider the Applicant’s request to care for the child. Since the Applicant was provided with a sufficient explanation at the hearing the Board will not order a remedy in this case.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Parties 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.