D.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, 2013 CFSRB 68

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

D.C.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: December 11, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 68

Indexed as: D.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) held a pre-hearing on December 2, 2013 to clarify the issues and to hear a preliminary motion regarding the Board’s jurisdiction to proceed with the application made by D.C. (the “Applicant”) under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (the “Society”).

2The Applicant’s two children who are 11 and 14 years old reside with her subject to Society supervision under an interim Court Order granted in August of 2012. The matter is still proceeding on the protection application and a trial date has yet to be set.

3The eligibility decision of November 13, 2013 specified that the Board would only deal with issues raised subsequent to the closing of the Applicant’s previous file on July 26, 2013. The decision also specified that the Board does not have jurisdiction to review custody and access issues.

4From the application and the pre-hearing, the Board has determined that the issues raised by the Applicant with respect to her right to be heard and to reasons under the Act are as follows:

1. The Society refused to investigate her child protection concerns for her children as a result of attending access visits with their father and his behaviour towards them, such as increased stress and anxiety and sleeping disturbance.

2. The Society is forcing her to make her children attend access visits with their father because of the court order.

3. The appointed lawyer from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is not listening to her or the children’s concerns, views and preferences and has behaved rudely towards her.

4. The Society has not investigated her report that the Applicant’s ex-husband [ex-husband] suffers from PTSD and is not making him attend for counselling for anger management, relationship and parenting.

5. The Applicant was not provided with the results of the referral made by the Hospital Social worker.

6. The Society is biased in favour of her ex-spouse to cover up their initial mistake of intervention with the family.

5The Society’s position is that the Board should not be conducting a review of the complaints on three grounds.

1. The issues raised in the Application are before the court.

2. Even if the issues were not before the court, they are protection issues rather than service issues. As well, some of the complaints relate to the Applicant’s ex-husband and the OCL, not the Society.

3. The Board lacks jurisdiction to provide the remedies sought by the Applicant.

ANALYSIS

6The Board has determined that it has jurisdiction to hear the issues # 1,4,5,6. The relevant legislation is as follows:

Matters for Board review

68.1(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.

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.

No review if matter within purview of court

68.1(8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(b) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court; or

(c) is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Issue 1: The Society refused to investigate her child protection concerns for her children as a result of attending access visits with their father and his behaviour towards them, such as increased stress and anxiety and sleeping disturbance.

7The Applicant states she has reports from 3 doctors that relate to her children’s health issues caused by stress relating to access attendance. She also has a report from a paediatrician on the same issues and the Society is not hearing these concerns and not acting on them without reasons.

8The Society submits that these issues are before the Court or, alternatively, are protection issues rather than service issues.

9The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this complaint under subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act. As a parent, the Applicant is alleging that the Society did not listen to her concerns for the safety of her children and did not provide her with reasons for that refusal. The Board finds that while the related issues may be before the Court in the determination of the placement of the children or of any access orders, the Court will not make a determination on whether the Applicant was heard by the Society when she reported these concerns or whether she was provided with reasons for the Society’s refusal to investigate or act on these concerns. There was no evidence that the Court had been asked to deal with the Applicant’s service concerns.

Issue 2: The Society is forcing her to make her children attend access visits with their father because of the court order.

10The Society argued that this issue is before the Court in the child protection application and as such, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board.

11The Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it relates specifically to the compliance with the court order.

Issue 3: The appointed lawyer from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is not listening to her or the children’s concerns, views and preferences and has behaved rudely towards her.

12The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

Issue 4: The Society has not investigated her report that the Applicant’s ex-husband suffers from PTSD and is not making him attend for counselling for anger management, relationship and parenting.

13The Society submits that these issues are before the Court or, alternatively, are protection issues rather than service issues.

14Similarly to Issue 1, the Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this issue under subsection 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act which gives the Applicant the right under subsection 2(2)(a) to be heard and the right to be provided with reasons for that decision.

Issue 5: The Applicant was not provided with the results of the referral made by the Hospital Social worker.

15For the same reasons as listed above, the Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this issue under subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act which give the Applicant the right under subsection 2(2)(a) to be heard and to reasons. There was no evidence that this issue was put to the Court to decide.

Issue 6: The Society is biased in favour of her ex-spouse to cover up their initial mistake of intervention with the family.

16The Applicant alleges that the Society is not listening to her, but instead is supporting her ex-husband to cover up the initial mistake of becoming involved with the family. As an example, the Applicant stated she played a recording of her ex-husband yelling and swearing at her to the assigned Society Worker. Instead of supporting the Applicant, the Society worker called the ex-husband and disclosed that the Applicant had played the tape and made her (the worker) listen to it and that he should not worry about it. The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this issue under subsection 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

DECISION

17The Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear issues # 1, 4, 5 and 6.

18The Board finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear issues # 2 and 3.

19The matter will now be referred to Settlement Facilitation. The case coordinator assigned to the file will contact the parties to schedule a date to proceed to a settlement facilitation.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

20Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties 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.