J.G. v. Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, 2013 CFSRB 48

J.G.

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: September 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 48

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

INTRODUCTION

1J.G., the Applicant commenced an Application pursuant to sections 68.1(4) and 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.C.11, as amended, (the “Act”), because she was dissatisfied with the services she had been receiving from the Family and Children’s Services, County of Renfrew (the “Society”). The application was heard on June 19 and August 14, 2013.

2Broadly speaking, first, the Applicant complained that she was not heard/provided with reasons in terms of her personal experiences with the Society for both the Intake Worker (the “Intake Worker”) and the Child Protection Worker (the “Worker”). Second, the Applicant complained that the Society did not hear her when it refused to address many of the concerns that she had regarding her daughter’s (the “Child”) access visits with the biological father (the “Father”) and did not explain its lack of action.

3The Board finds in favour of the Applicant regarding e-mail communication with the Worker, the Worker’s school visit to see the Child, the Worker’s failure to visit the various homes occupied by the Father, the missing police enforcement protocols in the Service Plan prepared by the Worker, the Worker’s failure to ensure, on an ongoing basis that the Father was a suitable parent, and the Worker’s failure to ensure the well-being of the Child over the last two weekends of March, 2013. The Board dismisses her complaints regarding telephone communication with the Society, Society’s efforts to understand her domestic violence and treatments, Society’s failure to deal with the breaches of the access terms by the Father, and all other complaints involving activities and decisions of the Intake Worker.

4Below are the Board’s reasons for this decision.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant has full custody of the Child, aged 6 years, and the Father has access. Since October, 2009 access visits were permitted every second weekend at the Society’s discretion. That order was amended in December, 2009 by adding the following restrictions on access: visits at a specified residence of the Father, no other persons to be present during access, no alcohol or drugs to be consumed during access visits and these new terms enforceable by the police.

6The Applicant and the Father have a long history of involvement with the Society prior to the current involvement, which began in the spring of 2012. On a ruling from Justice [ ], the Society had received seven referrals about child protection concerns, five of which led to investigations. The current file was handled by the Intake Worker A.F., (the “Intake Worker”) until July, 2012 when it was transferred to active status. Two Child Protection Workers, J.P., until April [ ], 2013 (the “Worker”) and N.D. (the “New Worker”) to the present have carried the file.

7The Applicant received treatment for abuse she alleges to have suffered from the Father. Part of her complaint is that this context of domestic violence was not factored into the Society’s decision-making and approach to issues raised. There were ongoing problems with access and allegations by and against the Applicant. The Society is still involved with the family but may be seeking to terminate its protection proceeding.

ANALYSIS

8The main issues before the Board are as follows. First, the Applicant complained that there were many issues related directly to her personal involvement with the Society. This complaint is identified below as Theme I. Second, the Applicant complained that the Society refused to address many of the concerns that she raised regarding the Child’s safety during access visits with the Father concerning the Society’s failure to investigate all aspects of the Father’s background, residences and current contacts. This is identified below as Theme II. Finally, the Applicant complained about the failure of the Society to consider the Child’s risk of emotional harm during two specific weekend events in late March, 2013. In all three cases she complained that she was not heard nor did she receive reasons for decisions made by the Society that affected her interests.

9The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

68(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

68(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the review procedure:

an alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant,
a matter described in subsection 68.1 (4)

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

Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a);
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

68.1(8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint (a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

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.

Scope of the Application Before the Board

10The Applicant complained in her letter to the Society of April 9, 2013 that she had been discriminated against and harassed by Society workers. This complaint was first raised after she applied to the Board and cannot be deemed to be a service concern about which she had previously complained to the Society. The Board did not deal with this complaint which will be part of the internal complaint process currently before the Society but on hold, pending the Board’s process.

11The Applicant had three complaints related to matters that were before the court or decided by the court. The Board ruled that under section 68.1(8) of the Act, none of these complaints could be heard.

The Right to be Heard and to Reasons

12In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33, at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of subsections 68.1(4) and (5) and addressed s.68.1(4).4 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.

13The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the Board held that:

With 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.

14In Ontario, all child welfare referrals must be rated using the Eligibility Spectrum (“Spectrum”) to see whether an investigation must be done and if so, of what priority. The Spectrum dictates certain responses for certain types of allegations. In terms of exposure to domestic conflict, there is a section of the Spectrum that deals with children’s exposure to adult/partner conflict including conflict in custody disputes. The range of interventions depends on the situation and the child. There is however, a mandatory exercise of evaluating referrals to the Society, under the Spectrum.

15The Child Protection Standards in Ontario (Standards) are mandatory for Societies under the Act and regulations. The Standards outline mandatory steps for investigations. These include speaking to the alleged perpetrator and adults living with the child. The stated outcomes for the Standards, under Standard #1, include:

The Society has a thorough, comprehensive collection of relevant information including an accurate description of the reported incident or condition.
All children who are exposed to domestic violence are screened for the need for child protection or community service.

16Under Standard #4, an investigation includes face to face contact with the child, interviews of the non-abusing caregiver and the alleged perpetrator and direct observation of the child’s living situation, interviews of witnesses and of other adults living in the home.

17Evidence of compliance with the Spectrum and the Standards can be evidence that an applicant was heard/given reasons, based on a minimum benchmark. Conversely, evidence of non-compliance with the Spectrum and the Standards can be evidence that a Society has not met its obligations under s. 68.1(4) 4 and 5.

a) Communications between the Society and the Applicant

18The Applicant complained that Society workers would not communicate with her by e-mail but often used e-mail to communicate with the Father. During the intake phase the record shows that the Intake Worker used e-mail regularly for both the Applicant and the Father. Furthermore, the Worker testified that she regularly used e-mail to send schedules and other non-sensitive information to both the Applicant and the Father. She also stated that she had made the Applicant aware of her personal e-mail policy which was used for both the Applicant and the Father.

19The Applicant also complained that the Worker did not listen to her concerns about the need for e-mail communication beyond schedules. She testified that she told the Worker about her ADHD diagnosis, that she needed e-mail so she could track communications as she had difficulty remembering what was said on telephone conversations. The Worker testified that she had told the Applicant that she did not use e-mail for sensitive information, but did not offer the Applicant any other options for receiving sensitive information. The Worker also stated that she did not trust hotmail but did not know that the Applicant had obtained a new e-mail address to avoid the hotmail concerns. The Worker also testified that she did not remember being told about the ADHD condition, that she used her own e-mail policy and she was unaware of what the Society’s official policy was. The Applicant stated that the Worker did not clearly explain her e-mail policy.

20The Board finds that the Applicant was not heard by the Worker regarding the Applicant’s request for a paper trail of communication as an accommodation and finds that no reasons or explanations were given to the Applicant why e-mail could not be used for all communication as requested.

21The Applicant further complained that the Society failed to return her telephone calls in the autumn of 2012. However, she did not state whether she pursued this beyond that dates of the non-returned calls. Submissions and testimony shows that the Intake Worker and the Worker made numerous calls to the Applicant and had many conversations with her. Between mid-January 2013 and late February 2013 the Applicant failed to return many calls to the worker claiming the Worker knew she was working full-time and could not make calls during work hours. The Worker’s chronology of activities shows that the Applicant made no effort, including leaving a voice message for the Worker, to provide information to the Worker when she might be available. The Worker stated that she knew about the full-time employment but did not know the Applicant’s entire daily schedule.

22Communication and the willingness to share information and schedules is an equal responsibility between the Applicant and the Society. In this case there is evidence indicating that the Applicant failed in many circumstances to communicate with the Society, yet she faults the Society for being uncommunicative. In these instances, it was difficult for the Society to hear the Applicant or provide her with explanations because of the breakdown in communication, contributed to significantly by the Applicant. Aside from the telephone calls not returned in November, 2012, to which the Society did not respond, the Applicant did not further complain about phone calls. The Board dismisses this complaint.

b) The Society ignored domestic violence and treatment

23The Applicant complained that the Society failed to recognize the abuse she had suffered and the treatment she had received for the mental health issues resulting from that abuse in its decision- making. This would be part of hearing her perspective and putting it in context as part of genuine communication. Few detailed examples of this failure were provided other than her allegation that the Society failed to recognize that the Father was an abuser who should have been more thoroughly investigated (a matter discussed in detail below) and the Society’s insistence that it needed her medical records to verify her issues and treatment.

24The Society workers indicated that they were fully cognizant of the Father’s abusive nature towards the Applicant as both workers indicated they had read all of the notes in the files from the five previous investigations. With the Applicant’s encouragement both workers made attempts to contact the relevant treating professional. The Worker spoke with this individual but her notes show that nothing significant about the Applicant was provided. Furthermore, to fully understand the Applicant’s condition both workers sought consent to obtain her discharge report from her treatment centre but their requests were repeatedly denied by the Applicant.

25The Applicant testified that, among several mental health issues, she [had certain conditions]. The Applicant did not permit the Society to verify this diagnosis or any other conditions that were treated. Furthermore, the Society workers stated that they were fully aware of the Father’s abusiveness towards the Applicant from thorough readings of the files from previous investigations. This issue is not a straightforward one. The Board finds that in terms of trying to understand the Applicant’s mental health issues as part of their working with her and making decisions, the Society heard the Applicant and actively followed up. This part of the complaint is dismissed.

26However, in terms of the domestic violence context, awareness of that context in and of itself does not mean that the workers were necessarily sensitive to it or factoring it into decision-making as part of the Applicant’s situation and perspective when she made allegations or had allegations made against her. The Board will therefore deal with this aspect of the complaint on a situational basis, where it is relevant to the analysis of the Applicant being heard/provided with reasons.

c) Society Visit with the Child at School

27In the autumn of 2012 the Worker indicated to the Applicant that she wanted to visit the Child at school. The Applicant did not agree and the Worker did not conduct any school visits with the Child for several months. For 5-6 weeks in January and February, 2013 there was no direct communication between the Applicant and this Worker. The Worker visited the Child at school in February, 2013. The Worker did not provide any “heads-up” to the Applicant by voice message or e-mail that this visit would occur. The Worker did not provide any reasons to the Applicant why she was conducting the visit at the school and did not seek her input on this decision.

28The Board finds that, initially the Worker listened to the Applicant and abided by the Applicant’s wishes. Several months later she ignored the Applicant’s wishes and, unannounced and without providing reasons, went to the school to see the Child. The Board finds that on this issue the Society failed to meet its obligations under both section 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act as the Applicant was not heard on this matter and no reasons for the Worker’s actions were provided.

THEME II: Society’s Failure to Investigate the Father

a) Society Visits at the Father’s Residences

29The Applicant raised concerns with the Society about the presence of other people at the Father’s residences, possibly doing babysitting for him. The presence of others during access visits was prohibited by the December, 2009 Court Order. Both workers provided numerous examples of inquiries made into the babysitting allegations. The Father denied the allegation, the Child denied the allegation and the Intake Worker did not see any evidence of this when she visited the Father’s home on May [ ], 2012. This is consistent with the Standards. These results were explained to the Applicant on several occasions. The Board dismisses both the Applicant’s complaint that the Intake Worker did not hear her by not investigating the reports of other people babysitting the Child and that the Intake Worker did not provide her with any feedback on the investigations.

30The Applicant complained to the Society about how her allegations were handled by intake. She wanted the Worker to do more follow up as she felt it was an ongoing problem. In this regard, the Board finds that she was not heard and explanations were not given. The Worker did no further follow up and reasons for determining that the Child was not being babysat by others were not provided. The Worker made no visits to any of the Father’s residences and had no direct knowledge of who really was in those houses before, during or after access visits. Nor did the Worker explain to the Applicant why she felt the Intake Worker’s investigation was sufficient, in the face of ongoing allegations.

31The Applicant also alleged that the Society did not investigate her allegation regarding the presence of other individuals during access visits. The workers testified that they followed up on the reports of “K” and “S” at the Father’s home. The presence was verified in the past when the Father was living at one residence. These people were not present during the visits and this result was provided to the Applicant. The allegation of the presence of another child – 13 years old – was followed-up immediately and the facts were given to the Applicant shortly after the full story was known. Similarly, an investigation was done and the result provided to the Applicant regarding her allegation that a known sex offender was residing in the Father’s home.

32The Board finds that the Intake Worker conducted visits to the home, consistent with the Standards, and reported back to the Applicant that the residence was a safe place for the Child.

33Subsequently, the Worker had carriage of the file from June, 2012 until April, 2013 and did not visit this address. She gathered relevant information about other persons in the home from the Child who was 5 years old at that time and by telephone conversations with the Father. She shared the information with the Applicant. While the Worker sought out some information, the Board is not satisfied the Society’s response is consistent with having heard the Applicant’s serious concerns and finds it failed to provide reasons for that decision. On this matter the Society failed to meet its obligations under both section 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

34During the autumn and winter 2012/2013 the Father was residing elsewhere in Ontario. He returned home every second weekend and stayed at a friend’s house for access visits. The Applicant alleged that the Child was not safe during access visits at this house and raised this concern with the Society. The Worker did not visit this house and did not investigate the house in regards to the occupants. She questioned the Child but did not speak to any of the adults. She provided the Applicant with her conclusion that the house was safe for visits as there were no known concerns. The Society did not hear the Applicant because there was minimal follow up that was not consistent with the Standards. The Society did not explain its decision to do minimal follow up and thus no reasons were given to her in this regard.

b) Breaches of the Access Terms

35The Applicant alleged that the Father repeatedly breached the court-ordered conditions for the Child’s access visits. The Society was actively involved in resolving access issues between the parties and in encouraging the Father to participate in access as part of their planning for the child. The Applicant reported her concerns about the access conditions to both workers who each made several investigations of the allegations. Both workers confirmed that the allegations were valid. Each worker spoke with the Father about the breaches and attempted to resolve some of the issues with limited success. All of this information was provided to the Applicant. Both workers told the Applicant about offering to have access at a supervised access centre; an idea rejected by the Father. Both workers also informed the Applicant and the Father that they needed to return to court to have the terms clarified. The workers were clear in explaining to the Applicant that their role was not to police and enforce the terms but to attend to the safety of the Child.

36On this matter the Board finds that the Society heard the applicant’s complaints, conducted investigations, offered remedies, reported their findings to the Applicant and explained their roles. The Board dismisses this aspect of the complaint.

37One of the terms for access was “terms to be enforced by the police”. Nothing was written on the order to clarify what this meant for either the Society or the Applicant. However, the Society took an active role in mediating access and liaised with both the police and the Applicant at different times, in different ways. The Society prepared a “service plan”, effective from August 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013. The plan outlines goals, desired outcomes and steps to be followed to ensure the outcomes are achieved. One outcome states that the Father has positive and regular access visits from the Child. The service plan does not include any references as to how the police could be involved in ensuring the terms for access are properly being met to ensure positive and regular access visits. The Society and the Applicant both called the police for assistance with the applying the terms of access, yet neither party knew precisely what the police should do in the circumstances they found. The police also did not know their role.

38The Applicant’s complaint about problems with access included communication difficulties that resulted because it was not clear how the police and the Society would manage breaches and communicate to the Applicant. Had the Society remained completely at arms length, the issue would be one for the police only. However, the Society was very much part of the planning around access and received calls from both parents on a regular basis. The Society did not spell out in the service plan how it and/or the Applicant would ensure positive i.e. safe access visits. It did not specify under what kinds of situations either or both parties could contact the police to enforce the terms. And, it did not detail what roles and actions, if any the police were expected to take.

39The service plan is essential as it sets out the relationship between the Applicant and the Society. If the service plan is silent or ambiguous on any aspect of this relationship, the Applicant cannot be heard by the Society when she raises concerns with respect to those silent or ambiguous items.

40In this regard the Board finds that the Society did not hear the Applicant’s complaints about breaches of the terms for access visits and also failed to explain to the Applicant how it was ensuring that access visits would be safe.

c) Concerns about the Father as a Parent

41The Applicant complained frequently to the Society about the ability of the Father to parent during access visits. He had a criminal record and according to the Applicant abused her and caused her mental health issues. The Intake Worker heard this complaint, visited the Father’s home during access visits and reported to the Applicant that the Child was safe and, aside from a spanking incident, the Father was parenting appropriately.

42In contrast, the Worker did not provide this service for the Applicant as access issues continued. She did not do visits during access. She testified that she recognized “red flag” concerns, such as the potential trauma on the Child from inconsistent visits and observations of her parents arguing, but could not offer any explanation why she did limited, if any follow-up. She also did not provide feedback to the Applicant as to why she did not pursue the “red flag” issues.

43The Board finds that during the Intake Worker’s carriage of the file the Applicant’s concerns about the Father’s ability to parent the Child were heard: follow-up occurred and feedback and explanations were provided to the Applicant. However, the Board also finds that during the Worker’s time with the file, the Applicant’s concerns in this regard were not heard, very little follow-up was done and the Applicant received limited or no feedback or explanations about the lack of thorough follow-up on issues about the Child’s safety at the Father’s home.

SINGLE EVENT #1: The weekend of March [ ], 2013

44The Child was scheduled to spend this weekend with the Applicant. The plan called for the Father to take the Child from school on Friday, March [ ], 2013 to a dentist appointment and then return the Child to the Applicant’s home. He refused permission to the Dentist to perform all of the prescribed work. He returned to his weekend residence and phoned the Applicant to indicate that she would have to come to this location to pick-up the Child. When she arrived there around 8:00 pm with a co-worker the Father accused her of being drunk, challenged the co-worker to a fight and refused to release the Child. The Child witnessed these events from a window.

45The Applicant went to the police and was deemed to be sober and fit for parenting. The police asked if she wanted the Child forcibly removed from the Father’s residence. She declined as she thought that would add too much extra trauma to what the Child had already experienced earlier that day.

46The Worker learned of this situation on March [ ] by text message from the Father. She called the Applicant to arrange a meeting as there were some serious allegations about her. The Applicant could not meet until 7:00 pm and asked the Worker to contact the police. The Worker did, learned the truth about the drinking and reported her findings to the Applicant. The Worker suggested a meeting later in the week but did not say what its purpose was. The Worker later advised the Applicant that she had called the Father to indicate his error in judgement and advised that in the future he was to call night duty and/or the police.

47The Applicant raised concerns with the Worker about the effect on the Child of this series of incidents. The Worker did not follow-up on any of these matters. She did not ask the Applicant for details. She did not try to meet with the Child. She let the matter drop.

48She testified that she did not know there had been an altercation or another adult present. Yet on cross-examination, she mentioned knowing that the co-worker was there and that the Father was possibly angry about the Applicant seeing someone else, which led to the situation of false allegations against the Applicant and withholding the child.

49In the context of domestic violence and the ongoing access disputes, this is significant information. The Worker is aware of the Spectrum but did not assess the situation by trying to get more information from the Applicant on the phone or re-framing the issue as not about whether the Applicant was sober but as about the Child’s exposure to conflict. Further, the Child did not have the dental treatment which was withheld by the Father: an issue that was never followed up. Because the Applicant was working and had activities with the Child and could not come in immediately, the Worker let things go, without pursuing them further. This is not indicative of a genuine attempt to communicate in response to the concerns.

50The Worker had a singular focus in this situation: the allegation against the Applicant. She did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about the Child being in the middle of ongoing access disputes and did not assess the information that she had in the context of her obligations to investigate the context fully. The Applicant was heard about the allegations against her: that was resolved by the police and an explanation given. She was not, however heard about the bigger picture of ongoing problems with access and the potential impact on her daughter. This contributed to events the following weekend, as set out below.

SINGLE EVENT #2: The weekend of March [ ], 2013 (Easter)

51By agreed arrangement between the Applicant and the Father the Child was scheduled to spend the next weekend, Easter weekend, with the Applicant and her mother. The Child’s school knew this and was perplexed when the Father arrived just prior to pick-up time on Thursday, March [ ]. The school contacted the Applicant. To avoid a situation similar to the previous weekend, the Applicant called the police. The police called the Worker for direction. The Worker testified that she told the police it was the Applicant’s weekend but she had no child protection concerns for either parent. She testified that she did not give specific directions to the police. The police let the Child go with the Father. Her testimony was that this happened late in the day on a long weekend. The Applicant tried to reach a supervisor but was told by the Worker that none was available.

52When the Applicant learned what had happened she went to the police to explain her concerns and defend her position as the parent who was to have the Child for the weekend. She learned from the police that the Child would be coming home to her on the morning of Tuesday, April [ ]. The Applicant also went to the Society office. She testified that she arrived approximately one minute before the 4:30 closing time and no–one would speak to her.

53The Worker testified that she had spoken with the Applicant’s mother on the [ ] while the event was unfolding. The Worker also testified that she spoke with the Father afterwards and learned from him that the police had directed that the Child was to be returned the next afternoon. She shared this information with the Applicant’s mother by voice mail. She did not share the information with the Applicant nor did she confirm the final arrangements with the police. The Applicant was left in the dark as to what was happening. At 3:00 pm on the [ ] of March the Father returned the Child to the Applicant’s home telling her mother at the door that he did not want the Child any longer. At no time did the Worker talk to the Child to see how this was impacting her especially after the events of the previous weekend. Two weeks after this event the Applicant was assigned a new worker.

54Aside from the apparently deliberate attempts by the Father to create turmoil, the Board notes that blame can be placed on the both the Applicant and the Worker for the way events unfolded both weekends. The Worker was neither designing nor enforcing the access visit schedule as set out in the service plan. The Applicant was going to the police to solve problems without involving the Worker yet she expected her concerns to be dealt with by that Worker. The working relationship between these two adults was broken: the Society has conceded that this was the case.

55Notwithstanding this broken relationship, the Child’s safety and well-being should have been the focus for the Society. The Board finds that the Worker did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about the Child, particularly given the incidents which had occurred one week before. The Board finds that the Applicant’s complaints in this regard were not heard nor were explanations given to her as to why the Child’s well-being was not a paramount consideration for the Worker at the time the events occurred.

56To summarize, the breakdown in communication must rest with the Society, as service provider to ensure that clients are heard. This was not a situation in which the Applicant completely shut down or barred communication: she struggled with it because she felt the Worker was not listening to her and thus, she tried other routes (supervisors/police) to help her in a difficult situation. The Applicant was not heard or given reasons for the Society’s minimal response, communicating with the mother, not the Applicant, and the lack of further action on this weekend.

CONCLUSION

57Overall, the Board finds that the Intake Worker heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons. The Worker, on the other hand, did not. This again speaks to the communication breakdown, which the Society was aware of and did not address. The Applicant is happy with the New Worker and feels that she responds to her concerns in a manner that takes into account the context of domestic violence. The New Worker has committed to investigating the events of the two weekends in question and is doing checks on the people living in the father’s home. The Society has committed to dealing with those aspects of the Applicant’s complaint letters that the Board has not, in its internal complaints review process.

Board decision

58 Section 68(10) of the Act empowers the Board to make orders as follows:

Upon completing its review of a decision by a society in relation to a complaint, the Board may,

(b) in the case of a review of a matter described in subsection 68.1(4), make any order described in subsection 68.1(7) as appropriate;

68.1(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

ORDERS

59The New Worker has committed to investigate the incidents of the two weekends and the Society advised that it will address the Applicant’s outstanding complaints, in writing. The Board notes that the Society is obliged to follow the complaints provisions of the Act for any outstanding issues that the Board did not address.

60The Board orders:

the Society to hear the Applicant’s concerns about the effect on the Child of the March incidents, in the context of ongoing access issues and the history of domestic violence. The Society, after considering potential risks, shall provide detailed written reasons to the Applicant, setting out its findings, the factors it took into account and how, including the contextual factors noted above, the perspective of the Applicant and the Child Protection Standards/Spectrum;
that the Society will hear the applicant’s concerns about problems with implementing the access order and particularly the uncertainty as to when the police should be contacted and provide a response to those complaints which will include revising the service plan to address those concerns because the service plan defines the relationship between the Applicant and the Society; and
in response to the complaint about e-mail communication, the Society will provide a written a copy of its e-mail policy to the Applicant and make inquiries with respect to the nature of any Human Rights Code related accommodation sought by the Applicant. The Society is reminded of its obligations as a service provider to accommodate disabilities to the point of undue hardship. The Applicant is reminded persons seeking accommodation of a disability have an obligation to participate meaningfully in the accommodation process.

61The Society will have 30 days from the date of this decision (i.e. October 13, 2013) to comply with these orders.

62If the Applicant believes that the Society has not complied with an order including that one or more of the Society’s response(s) are not meaningful (in other words the explanations do not help her to understand the reasons why the Society made the decisions that it did), she may bring this to the Board’s attention by delivering written submissions to the Society and filing them with the Board within fifteen days of receiving the Society’s responses (i.e. October 28, 2013). Her submissions must identify each order that she alleges is not complied with, including any response the Applicant alleges is not meaningful and explain why she says it does not help her understand the Society’s decisions.

63The Board will review the submissions and may:

find the Society has complied with the Board’s orders, including provided meaningful responses and close the file;
direct the Society to respond to the Applicant’s submissions and, after reviewing the Society’s response, issue further directions to the Society, reconvene the hearing or find the Society has provided meaningful responses and close the file.

64The panel remains seized of this application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

65Parties 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.

Sheena Scott

Presiding Member

Frances Sanderson

Panel Member

John Gates