J.R. v. Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 33

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.R.

v.

Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: June 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 33

Indexed as: J.R. v. Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.144)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application by J.R. (the “Applicant”) under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 as amended (the “Act”) asking the Board to rescind the decision of the Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) refusing [her] application to adopt B.C. (the “Child”). This application was heard on June 11, 2013.

2The position of the Applicant is that it is in the Child’s best interests to be placed with her and her partner as a member of the Child’s biological family. The position of the Society is that it is not in the Child’s best interests to be adopted by the Applicant because she and her partner were not recommended for adoption after a Structured Analysis Family Evaluation (“SAFE homestudy”). The Society raised concerns about the Applicant and her partner as prospective adoptive parents in the homestudy and at the hearing.

3For the reasons that follow, the Board confirms the Society’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s adoption application.

BACKGROUND

4The Child was born on February [ ] and apprehended in March of 2012 because of the parents’ significant intellectual delays and concerns regarding the parents’ capacity to care for the Child. The Child is a Crown Ward with no access to his biological parents and has been placed with a foster family.

5On December 9, 2012, the Applicant and her partner filed an application to adopt the Child who is the nephew of the Applicant. The Applicant is the half-sister of the biological mother. Since the Applicant lives in another jurisdiction, the Society requested the [local Society] to complete an adoption assessment.

6The Homestudy Worker from [the local Society] completed a Society file history check on the Applicant and her partner prior to meeting with them. The Applicant is the mother of two boys. The Homestudy Worker found verified investigations of neglect, lack of supervision, and parent/child conflict concerning the Applicant, her partner and the two boys. She met with the Applicant and her partner on January[ ] 2013 and discussed their family dynamics and child protection history. Following this home visit, the Homestudy Worker consulted with her supervisor and the Society. The Society decided not to proceed with the Homestudy. The Homestudy Worker visited again with the Applicant to advise her of this decision and sent a letter dated January 25, 2013 from both her and her supervisor advising that the adoption application had not been approved.

ANALYSIS

7The specific best interests of the child criteria are addressed in the Adoption section of the Act.

136 (2) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

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

3. The child’s cultural background.

4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

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

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

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

8. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

9. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

10. Any other relevant circumstance.

8In making its decision, the Board focused on the best interests criteria found at subsections 1 and 6 which are relevant to this particular child. The Board also dealt with several matters under subsection 10, “relevant circumstances”, being the concerns raised by the Society.

9The Board was guided more generally by the overall purposes of the Act, as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

10The Act mandates that:

63.1 Where a child is made a Crown ward, the society shall make all reasonable efforts to assist the child to develop a positive, secure and enduring relationship within a family through one of the following:

1. An adoption.

Criterion 1: The Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs

11The Board concludes that given their child welfare history and lack of evidence of any change in parenting, the Applicant and her partner would not be able to meet the Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs.

12The Applicant’s file history showed 8 file openings of child protection concerns from 2002 to 2009 with 3 verifications of neglect, lack of supervision and parent/child conflict. There were many reports on the condition of the home, neglect, poor hygiene, and lack of food. The school reported concerns of chronic neglect with the children showing poor hygiene, emitting a strong odour, and appearing mal-nourished, tired and unmotivated. The report stated that often the children did not have lunches. The Society documented significant environmental concerns in the home with serious safety and health concerns. It noted that the older son was responsible for caring for the younger one for a few hours in the morning when the Applicant was on the day shift, and for over seven and a half hours when she worked on the afternoon shift. As well, the older son took on the duties of caring for the younger brother, cooking dinner, completing laundry and putting him to bed.

13The [local Society] documented that the Applicant shaved the children’s heads because they refused to wash their hair. It noted that in reference to the school’s referrals of neglect and lack of hygiene, the Applicant and her partner felt that the school was to blame for letting her son manipulate the school into giving him food. The Society observed that the Applicant and her partner later minimized their involvement with the Society claiming they were unaware that there were any verified investigations in the home, although the Applicant did recall workers visiting due to environmental concerns. It noted that the Applicant and the partner felt that the referrals were malicious in nature.

14In 2007, the [local Society] verified parent/child conflict between the Applicant, her partner and the older son when he was 14. There was ongoing parent-child conflict with the boys not following through with rules and expectations and trashing the house when the parents were not present. Eventually, the older son went to live with an uncle in [ ]. The younger son, who is now 17, left home following his refusal to abide by the Applicant’s rules. The Applicant is unaware of his whereabouts or how to contact him.

15The Applicant testified to the child protection issues with her own children. She stated that she was unaware that her children were unsupervised. No one brought to her attention that the babysitter was not supervising the children. With regard to the children’s hygiene, she had to wash their hair for them and had to shave their hair to keep them clean. The children were provided lunches which they left in their backpack. She told the teachers not to buy the children lunch. She was advised by the case manager to let the older son leave home temporarily while they worked on their conflict issues. She was told that if she did not do this, she would lose her younger son. She now communicates with her older son who came back to live with them for a year and then decided to move back out west. The younger son left home when she told him he had to abide by a set curfew. He has refused to give her information on where he is staying. She stated that she and her partner had parenting problems, but they were not given assistance to help solve these problems.

16The Homestudy Worker testified that she was concerned about the Applicant’s child welfare history since past history can be an indicator of future behaviour and the ability to meet the Child’s needs. She had concerns regarding the Applicant’s rigid and uncompromising parenting which resulted in both children leaving the home. The Homestudy Worker stated that historical concerns do not automatically disqualify an applicant and can sometimes be mitigated. However, the Applicant cannot be observed in a parenting role since her two children have left home. She has not taken any courses to improve her parenting skills or provided any proof that she is able to understand the challenges of parenting in an effective way. In discussions with the Applicant, she has not shown insight into past child protection issues, choosing to minimize her role and finding fault with others.

17The Supervisor testified that her primary concern was the Applicant’s file history which was significant. There were three verifications of child protection concerns, verifications which require significant evidence. There were many reports of neglect, poor hygiene, lack of lunches and the condition of the home. She noted that the Society is placing a vulnerable infant who cannot speak and must rely on its caregiver.

18The Supervisor stated that in the case of kinship placements, the Society does look at how past history may be mitigated. In this case, the Society must have a sense of what has changed since the last referral four years ago. The Applicant shows a lack of insight when she does not take ownership of the issues concerning her two boys. The Society has not seen much change. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to show evidence of this change.

19The Board finds that the Applicant would not be able to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of the Child. The evidence before the Board is that the Applicant has not met the physical, mental and emotional needs of her own children. There were verified reports of her children being neglected with poor hygiene, a lack of food and poor living conditions in the home. There was a lack of supervision. There was conflict in the home severe enough to cause both boys to leave home when they were still adolescents. There was no evidence before the Board that the Applicant has taken any initiative to become more effective in parenting children. She continues to not take responsibility for her child welfare history, but chooses instead to blame the children, the school and the babysitter. The Board has significant concerns about the Applicant’s ability to parent a vulnerable infant and meet his physical, mental and emotional needs.

Criterion 6: The Child’s Relationship by Blood

20The Child Protection Worker testified that the Society considered kinship placements for the Child. A Permanency Planning and Review Committee Meeting was held on May 1, 2012 between Society personnel and family members. Present were the Childs’s maternal aunt and uncle (not the Applicant), maternal grandmother, paternal grandparents, the biological mother, her legal counsel and the biological father. Consideration was given to a placement with the maternal aunt and uncle, and a couple who were friends of the family. Neither of these placements was possible at the conclusion of the meeting because the mother was against placing the Child with anyone who would keep the Child away from her. The mother was very contentious; accordingly it was not suitable for her and the baby to live with the family. It appeared that the mother would sabotage any plans put forward by damaging the relationship with the family or making allegations against them. No other family members came forward with a plan at the time.

21The Applicant testified that she heard about the Child from her father and contacted the Child Protection Worker in September of 2012 to express an interest in caring for him. The Applicant is a half sister to the mother and shares a common father with the mother. The Applicant has never met the Child.

22The Applicant testified that she wants to adopt the Child because she loves children and wants to give her nephew the opportunity to know his family and for the family to know him.

23The Child Protection Worker testified that there are families outside the biological family who are waiting and ready to adopt the Child. She is of the opinion that it is not in the Child’s best interests to be adopted by the Applicant given her case history, neglect issues with her own children, and the fact that the Applicant has shown no significant change.

24The Board finds that the Child’s relationship by blood is not a determinant factor in this case. The Applicant is the Child’s aunt but she has never met the Child. She has not formed an attachment to the Child and his continuity of care would not be disrupted by not being placed with her. The Child is now a Crown Ward with no access to his biological parents. A placement with a family member may in fact be detrimental since the biological mother may interfere with the adoptive family.

Criterion 10: Any other relevant circumstance

Living Environment

25The Applicant lives in a one bedroom mobile home with no bedroom ready for the Child. The Applicant plans to use the laundry room as the Child’s room.

26The Homestudy Worker inspected the living environment and determined that there were some safety issues which need to be addressed. The Homestudy reported that the room for the baby requires renovation to meet Ministry and Society standards. There is a strong animal odour in the room proposed for the baby and proper flooring needs to be put in. The window is covered with plastic sheeting and has to be cleared of hazards. There is a space in the room which has to be finished. The gun on display in the living room should be properly stored. The Homestudy Worker also found a strong odour of smoke in the home. Applicants applying to adopt a child under the age of six cannot be smokers.

27The Homestudy Worker had concerns regarding whether the renovations could be completed given that the Applicant’s finances might be challenging. She stated that if a residence does not meet SAFE standards, an application would not be accepted although sometimes the issues can be mitigated.

28The Applicant testified that she can obtain a line of credit to complete the renovations.

29The Board finds that the Applicant’s living environment is not a primary concern. Although not ideal at the moment, the living environment could be renovated to meet Ministry and SAFE standards.

The Family’s Financial Situation

30Both the Applicant and her partner have had credit problems in the past. The Applicant has defaulted on a student loan. The family has limited financial resources with only one income. The Homestudy Worker noted her concern that placing a child in the home could cause financial hardship. However, the Homestudy Worker testified that in adoptions, families are not discriminated against on the basis of income.

31The Board finds that although the financial situation would be challenging for the family, finances alone are not a determinant factor in the placement of the Child.

DECISION

32Having regard for the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs, the Board determines that it is not in the child’s best interests to be placed for adoption with the Applicant, and thus the adoption application should not proceed.

33The Board confirms the decision of the Society to refuse the Applicant’s application to adopt the Child, [ ], born February [ ].

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

34Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.

CELIA DENOV

_____________________

Celia Denov

Presiding Member

RUTH ANN SCHEDLICH

_____________________

Ruth Ann Schedlich

Panel Member

MARY WONG

_____________________

Mary Wong

Panel Member